Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01058/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01058-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
La Vang
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LA VANG,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01058-CDB (SS)

ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR AWARD 

OF ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO THE 

EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 

U.S.C. § 2412(d) 

(Doc. 23)

Pending before the Court is the stipulated request of Plaintiff La Vang (“Plaintiff”) for the 

award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 

2412(d), in the amount of $7,500.00 to counsel for Plaintiff, Jonathan O. Peña.

1

 (Doc. 23).

The parties agree that an award of attorney’s fees to counsel for Plaintiff should be made 

payable to Plaintiff, but if the Department of the Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe 

a federal debt, then the Commissioner shall cause the payment of fees, expenses, and costs to be 

made directly to Plaintiff’s counsel, Jonathan O. Peña. Id. at 2.

On August 30, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and 

remanded the case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner for 

1 Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a U.S. magistrate judge for all 

proceedings in this action, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (Doc. 9).

Case 1:21-cv-01058-CDB Document 24 Filed 12/02/24 Page 1 of 3
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

further proceedings. (Doc. 21). Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 22). On November 

27, 2024, Plaintiff filed the pending stipulation for attorney fees as a prevailing party. (Doc. 23).

See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300-02 (1993) (concluding that a party who wins a 

sentence-four remand order under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party). Plaintiff’s filing is 

timely. Van v. Barnhart, 483 F.3d 600, 607 (9th Cir. 2007). The Commissioner does not oppose 

the requested relief. (Doc. 23).

The EAJA provides for an award of attorney fees to private litigants who both prevail in 

civil actions (other than tort) against the United States and timely file a petition for fees. 28 

U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Under the EAJA, a court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing 

party unless it finds the government’s position was “substantially justified or that special 

circumstances make such an award unjust.” Id. Here, the government did not show its position 

was substantially justified and the Court finds there are not special circumstances that would 

make an award unjust. Moreover, the government does not oppose Plaintiff’s stipulated request. 

See Sanchez v. Berryhill, No. 1:16-cv-01081-SKO, 2018 WL 509817, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 

2018) (finding position of the government was not substantially justified in view of the 

Commissioner’s assent to remand); Knyazhina v. Colvin, No. 2:12–cv–2726 DAD, 2014 WL 

5324302, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2014) (same).

Plaintiff requests an award of $7,500.00 in EAJA fees. (Doc. 23). The Ninth Circuit 

maintains a list of the statutory maximum hourly rates authorized by the EAJA, adjusted for 

increases in the cost of living, on its website. See Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870, 876-

77 (9th Cir. 2005). Even assuming Plaintiff’s counsel seeks the median of the published 

maximum rate associated with the years (2021, 2022) during which he engaged in services in this 

case (which the Court computes as $226.25),2the requested award would amount to

approximately 33 hours of attorney time (not accounting for any paralegal time expended). The 

Court finds this reasonable and commensurate with the number of hours an attorney would need 

to have spent reviewing the certified administrative record in this case (approximately 737 pages; 

2

Statutory Maximum Rates Under the Equal Access to Justice, available at

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/attorneys/statutory-maximum-rates/ (last visited November 27, 

2024).

Case 1:21-cv-01058-CDB Document 24 Filed 12/02/24 Page 2 of 3
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

Doc. 8) and preparing a motion for summary judgment that includes eight pages of argument. 

(Doc. 16 at 8-17). With respect to the results obtained, Plaintiff’s counsel obtained a favorable 

judgment remanding the case for further proceedings. (Docs. 21, 22).

EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset 

Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). If the Commissioner 

determines upon effectuation of this order that Plaintiff’s EAJA fees are not subject to any offset 

allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise transmitted to Plaintiff’s counsel.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s stipulated request for attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA (Doc. 23) is 

GRANTED; and 

2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party attorney’s fees in 

the amount of $7,500.00, pursuant to the terms set forth in the parties’ stipulation. (Doc. 

23). Fees shall be made payable to Plaintiff, but if the Department of the Treasury 

determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, then the government shall cause the 

payment of fees, expenses, and costs to be made directly to Plaintiff’s counsel, as set forth 

in the stipulation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 27, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01058-CDB Document 24 Filed 12/02/24 Page 3 of 3