Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01288/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01288-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lori Ann Brown
Plaintiff
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LORI ANN BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

No. 1:14-cv-01288-DAD-SKO

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND 

EXPENSES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL 

ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT BE GRANTED

(Doc. Nos. 23, 28)

After successfully obtaining reversal of an administrative decision denying her application 

for Social Security disability benefits, plaintiff filed an application for an award of attorney fees 

and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) in the amount of $5,834.84. 

(Doc. No. 23.) On May 18, 2016, defendant filed an opposition asserting that its litigation 

position and underlying administrative decision were substantially justified. (Doc. No. 26.) 

Defendant further argued that because plaintiff achieved only limited success in the litigation, as 

the magistrate judge had recommended affirming the underlying administrative decision and the 

reviewing district judge had remanded for reconsideration on only one ground, any award for 

attorney fees should be reduced. (Id.) On May 19, 2015, plaintiff filed a reply brief, which 

/////

Case 1:14-cv-01288-DAD-SKO Document 29 Filed 09/13/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

requested a supplemental EAJA award of $228.07 for 1.2 hours spent on the reply brief. (Doc. 

No. 27.) 

On June 6, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge recommended plaintiff’s application for 

EAJA fees and expenses be granted, in the amount of $6,062.91, with fifteen days leave to file 

written objections with the Court. (Doc. No. 28.) No objections to those findings and 

recommendations have been filed. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 

and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly,

1. The June 6, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 28) are adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for EAJA fees and expenses (Doc. No. 23) is granted in the amount 

of $6,062.91.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01288-DAD-SKO Document 29 Filed 09/13/16 Page 2 of 2