Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00564/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00564-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Patricia Patterson
Plaintiff

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICIA PATTERSON, No. CIV S-07-0564-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brings this action for judicial

review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

Following plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the parties entered into a stipulation to

remand this case to the defendant for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C.

§ 405(g). Accordingly, judgment was entered on January 4, 2008. Pending before the court is

plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (hereinafter

EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (Doc. 22).

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-00564-CMK Document 23 Filed 04/21/08 Page 1 of 5
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

2

Background

The Social Security Administration originally denied plaintiff’s claim for Social

Security and/or Supplemental Security Income disability benefits under Titles II and XVI of the

Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq. and 1381 et seq. Her requests for reconsideration

were also denied. A hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who also

denied plaintiff’s disability benefits in part. This action followed the ALJ’s decision. 

Discussion

The EAJA authorizes an award of “fees and other expenses” to a prevailing party

in a case against the United States “unless the court finds that the position of the United States

was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. §

2412(d)(1)(A). In social security appeals such as this, the Commissioner bears the burden of

showing that her decision to deny benefits was substantially justified “to a degree that could

satisfy a reasonable person.” See Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988). In this case

the Commissioner does not challenge the plaintiff’s entitlement to fees, and the court’s own

review of the record does not reveal any special circumstances which would render an EAJA

award unjust. See 28 U.S.C. §. 2412(d)(1)(A). Thus, the court concludes that the position of the

Commissioner was not justified and that reasonable fees should be awarded under the EAJA. 

Having concluded that an EAJA award is proper, the court moves to the contested

issue of whether the amount sought by plaintiff’s counsel is reasonable. “This court has

discretion in determining the amount of a fee award, including the reasonableness of the hours

claimed by the prevailing part.” Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1398 (9th Cir. 1992)

(citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983)); see also INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154

(1990) (the district court’s determination of what fee is reasonable under the EAJA is the same as

the standard in Hensley). With respect to attorney’s fees, plaintiff’s counsel requests a total of 

$5,829.50 for 35.6 hours of work. The EAJA provides that “attorney fees shall not be awarded

in excess of $125 per hour unless the court determines that an increase in the cost of living or a

Case 2:07-cv-00564-CMK Document 23 Filed 04/21/08 Page 2 of 5
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

3

special factor . . . justifies a higher fee.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). The rates submitted by

plaintiff’s counsel are adjusted to account for cost of living increases–a rate of $163.75 per hour.

To support these adjustments, plaintiff’s counsel cites the United States Department of Labor’s

Consumer Price Index, which according to the Ninth Circuit, constitutes proper proof of the

increased cost of living since the EAJA’s enactment and justifies an award of attorney’s fees

greater than the statutory cap. See Sorenson v. Mink, 239 F.3d 1140, 1148 (9th Cir. 2001). The

Commissioner does not challenge the hourly rates proposed by plaintiff’s counsel. The court’s

own review of the plaintiff’s evidence indicates that the figures are accurate. Accordingly, the

court finds that the hourly rates proposed by plaintiff’s counsel are reasonable. 

The court next moves to the itemized accounting of attorney time that plaintiff’s

counsel submitted in support of the fee application. According to plaintiff’s counsel, she spent a

total of 35.6 hours working on this case in the following manner: 1.5 hours discussing the case

with the referring attorney and her client, and drafting her client a letter; 0.75 hours drafting the

complaint and other documents for filing; 0.7 hours reviewing case documents (IFP order,

scheduling documents, USM forms, answer); 8.5 hours reviewing the records and conducting

legal research; 20.5 hours drafting the motion for summary judgment; 0.4 hours reviewing the

remand offer; 0.75 hours discussing case with her client and referring attorney; and 2.5 hours

dealing with attorney fees. The Commissioner challenges this figure as unreasonable and

excessive, and argues that plaintiff’s counsel failed to exclude hours that were excessive,

redundant, or otherwise unnecessary. 

Specifically, the Commissioner takes issue with the 29.75 hours counsel spent

conducting research, reviewing the record, and drafting the complaint and motion for summary

judgement; the 2.95 hours counsel spent discussing the case with her client and referring counsel

and reviewing case documents; and the 2.5 hours counsel spent dealing with attorney fees. The

Commissioner argues that plaintiff’s counsel’s fees should be reduced by 12.6 hours: 9.75 hours

in research, review and drafting; 1.85 hours in client communication; and 1.0 hour in attorney fee

Case 2:07-cv-00564-CMK Document 23 Filed 04/21/08 Page 3 of 5
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

4

requests. 

After reviewing the materials submitted in connection with this appeal, the court

is not persuaded that plaintiff’s counsel’s billing is unreasonable. Counsel spent 2 hours and 15

minutes discussing this matter with her client and the referring attorney, and less than 45 minutes

reviewing court documents. Defendant indicates all of this could have been accomplished in just

over one hour. Although defendant may be correct, the court does not find spending less than

three hours on these tasks unreasonable. Similarly, defendant argues that counsel could have

calculated her hours, drafted her fee request, reviewed defendant’s response, drafted a fee

petition, and a letter to her client in an hour and a half, instead of the two and a half she spent.

Again, this may be correct, but the court does not find the two and a half hours unreasonable.

Finally, defendant argues that counsel could have reviewed the record, conducted

the necessary legal research and drafted the complaint and the motion for summary judgment in

20 hours, instead of the 29.75 hours she spent. Counsel spent 45 minutes drafting the complaint. 

The record in this case is almost 400 pages. Assuming a rate of 60 pages per hour, a review of

the record would have reasonably taken about six and a half hours. Counsel then spent another

two hours conducting research and outlining her brief. She then spent 20.5 hours actually

drafting the 21 page motion for summary judgment, which raised three issues. Again, the court

does not find spending 20.5 hours drafting a motion for summary judgment to be unreasonable.

The total number of hours plaintiff’s counsel spent working on this matter is 35.6

hours. The bulk of this time was spent prior to defendant’s stipulation to remand the case. By

stipulating to the remand, defendant saved plaintiff’s counsel time reviewing an opposition or

cross-motion for summary judgment as well as drafting and filing a reply brief. District courts

have found that spending between 20 and 40 hours on a social security case that is not

particularly difficulty is a reasonable amount of time. See Harden v. Comm’r Social Security,

497 F. Supp.2d 1214, 1215-1216 (D. Or. 2007), Patterson v. Apfel, 99 F. Supp.2d 1212, 1215 n.

2 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (citing several cases). The 35.6 hours counsel is claiming in this case is on

Case 2:07-cv-00564-CMK Document 23 Filed 04/21/08 Page 4 of 5
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

5

the higher end of this scale given that additional time would have been spent if defendant had not

stipulated to a remand, but it is still within the average range. Therefore, the court does not find

the amount of time plaintiff’s counsel spent on this case was unreasonable. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s counsel’s request for attorney fees

is granted in the amount of $5,829.50.

DATED: April 21, 2008

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00564-CMK Document 23 Filed 04/21/08 Page 5 of 5