Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01659/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01659-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Defendant
Robert J. Denoris
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT J DENORIS,

Plaintiff,

v

JO ANNE B BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

 /

No C-04-1659 VRW

ORDER

 On March 28, 2006, the court reversed the Social Security

Administration’s (SSA’s) decision denying plaintiff Robert J

Denoris’s application for social security disability insurance

benefits and remanded the case for further administrative

proceedings. Doc #20. Plaintiff now requests an award of attorney

fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28

USC § 2412(d)(1)(A). Doc #22. For the reasons stated herein, the

court GRANTS the motion.

I

Eligibility for a fee award under the EAJA requires that

(1) the applicant be a prevailing party; (2) the government's

Case 3:04-cv-01659-VRW Document 25 Filed 09/14/06 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

position was not substantially justified; (3) no special

circumstances make an award unjust; and (4) pursuant to 28 USC §

2412 (d)(1)(B), any fee application be submitted to the court

within 30 days of final judgment in the action and be supported by

an itemized statement. Commissioner, Immigration & Naturalization

Service v Jean, 496 US 154, 158 (1990). Here, defendant Jo Anne B

Barnhart does not dispute plaintiff’s eligibility for a fee award. 

Having reviewed the case, the court finds that plaintiff has met

all four requirements and thus is eligible for an attorney’s fee

award under the EAJA. The only remaining issue is whether the

requested amount of award is reasonable. 

In determining a reasonable award, a district court may

consider “the number of hours reasonably expended on the

litigation” and a “reasonable hourly rate.” Sorenson v Mink, 239

F3d 1140, 1145 (9th Cir 2001) (quoting Hensley v Eckerhart, 461 US

424, 433 (1983)); See also 28 USC 2412(d)(1)(B) (requiring attorney

to submit a detailed, “itemized statement * * * stating the actual

time expended and the rate at which fees and other expenses were

computed”). The hourly rate is capped “in the mine run of cases”

at $125 per hour, subject to an upward adjustment for inflation. 

Gisbrecht v Barnhart, 535 US 789, 796 (2002) (citing 28 USC §

2412(d)(2)(A)). But a larger award may be granted if the court

“determines that an increase in the cost of living or a special

factor, such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys for

the proceeding involved, justifies a higher fee.” 28 USC §

2412(d)(2)(A)(ii).

A district court retains substantial discretion. Jean, 496

US at 161-63. For instance, the district court may reduce the

Case 3:04-cv-01659-VRW Document 25 Filed 09/14/06 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

amount of attorney fees if the prevailing party “unduly and

unreasonably protracted the final resolution of the matter in

controversy” or if the party’s fee application is “[e]xorbitant,

unfounded, or procedurally defective.” Id at 163. Also, attorney

hours may be reduced if the court determines that the case was

“overstaffed.” Hensley, 461 US at 434. The burden of documenting

the number of hours reasonably expended falls on the fee applicant. 

Hensley, 461 US at 433, 437.

II

Plaintiff’s attorney, Harvey P Sackett, requests an award of

$6,500.87 for attorney’s fees and $157.40 for costs. Doc #24,

Attachment 2. Sackett’s claim for attorney’s fees is based on an

hourly rate of $163.75 and the total 39.7 hours he declares he spent

on this appeal (including the time he spent litigating his request

for EAJA fees, id at 9). Id, Attachment 1. Defendant does not

dispute the reasonableness of either Sackett’s hourly rate or his

request for $157.40 for costs. Having reviewed the evidence

presented by Sackett, id, the court finds that $163.75 reflects an

appropriate cost of living adjustment of the $125 statutory hourly

rate, 28 USC § 2412(d)(2)(A), because Sackett has correctly followed

the method suggested by the Ninth Circuit in Sorenson, 239 F3d at

1148. The court also finds the $157.40 in costs, which includes the

filing fee, photocopying costs and postage, reasonable. 

The court next turns to the issue of the number of hours

expended, the only disputed issue regarding plaintiff’s EAJA fee

application. Sackett has presented the court with a detailed,

itemized statement, indicating the amount of time he spent for

Case 3:04-cv-01659-VRW Document 25 Filed 09/14/06 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

rendering each legal service. Doc #22, Attachment 2 at 2-3. 

Defendant argues that the 24.3 hours Sackett allegedly spent in

preparing a twenty-six-page memorandum in support of plaintiff’s

motion for summary judgment, Doc #13, and a four-page response to

defendant’s cross-motion, Doc #17, was “excessive” and thus should

be reduced by one-half to 12.15 hours. Opp at 6. 

Defendant argues in opposition that the case involved

routine, “non-complex” issues, and that Sackett was so “intimately

familiar” with the field of social security disability benefit law

and the particular issues in this case that he did not need a great

deal of time to prepare a couple of briefs. Opp at 3-5 (citing Kerr

v Screen Extras Guild, Inc, 526 F2d 67, 69-70 (9th Cir 1975)

(suggesting that in determining reasonable attorney hours, a

district court may consider inter alia the complexity of the case,

the novelty of the issues, the attorney’s expertise and skill, and

the disposition of the appeal)).

The court recognizes both the non-complex nature of this

case and Sackett’s apparent expertise in the field of social

security law. The court, however, is not convinced that those

factors in any significant way make 24.3 hours an excessive amount

of time for the two briefs on this appeal with thirty pages in

total. Doc #13; Doc #17. 

Defendant presents a line of social security cases in which

district courts reduced the number of attorney hours. Opp at 4-6.

See e g, Gisbrecht v Apfel, 238 F3d 1196 (9th Cir 2000) (holding

that the amount of attorney hours expended on the cases was more

than would be expected of practitioners claiming the right to

increased hourly rates based on increased knowledge of and

Case 3:04-cv-01659-VRW Document 25 Filed 09/14/06 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

specialization in the social security area); Vanover v Chater, 946 F

Supp 744 (E D Mo 1996) (holding petitioner’s claim of 42 hours

excessive for a routine social security disability case); Nugent v

Massanari, 2002 WL 356656 (N D Cal 2002) (calling forty pages and

28.8 hours excessive considering the attorney’s expertise in social

security matters); Sandine v Social Security Administration, 1999 WL

717823 (D Or 1999) (reducing attorney hours in EAJA fee petition due

to non-complex legal issues).

These cases, while relevant, do not support defendant’s

conclusion that 24.3 hours spent for two briefs with thirty pages in

total were “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” 

Hensley, 461 US at 434. The hourly rate requested by Sackett

reflects no increase due to his expertise in the area of social

security law. Doc #22, Attachment 1 ¶3. More important, each

social security case requires “a careful application of the law to

the testimony and documentary evidence, which must be reviewed and

discussed in considerable detail.” Patterson v Apfel, 99 F Supp 2d

1212, 1213 (C D Cal 2000). Defendant’s brief contains no specifics

justifying its request for reduction in attorney hours. Neither

does defendant contend that plaintiff engaged in “overstaff[ing],”

Hensley, 461 US at 434, or “unreasonabl[e] protract[ion] of the

final resolution of the matter in controversy.” INS, 496 US at 163. 

Accordingly, the court concludes that the number of attorney hours

requested by Sackett is a reasonable amount of time for the purposes

of the present case.

\\

\\

\\

Case 3:04-cv-01659-VRW Document 25 Filed 09/14/06 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

IV

For the reasons stated above, the court ORDERS defendant to

tender payment and reimbursement respectively made payable to

plaintiff’s attorney for attorney fees and costs in the amounts of

$6,500.87 and $157.40.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

 

Case 3:04-cv-01659-VRW Document 25 Filed 09/14/06 Page 6 of 6