Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00230/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00230-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Cindi Dearmon
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CINDI DEARMON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

No. 2:13-cv-0230 GEB CKD

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff’s motion for an award of attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act 

(EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1), is pending before the court. Plaintiff seeks fees in the amount of 

$7,790.47 based on 41.6 hours of attorney time and costs in the amount of $101.80. Defendant 

does not contend EAJA fees should not be awarded but contests the reasonableness of the fees 

requested by plaintiff. Defendant contests not the hourly rate1but the number of hours claimed 

by plaintiff’s counsel. In addition, defendant contends any fee that is awarded must be payable to 

the plaintiff.

The EAJA provides that the prevailing party in a civil action against the United States 

may apply for an order for attorney’s fees and expenses within thirty days of final judgment in the 

 

1

Plaintiff claims an hourly rate of $184.32 for worked performed in 2012 and $186.55 for work 

performed in 2013.

Case 2:13-cv-00230-GEB-CKD Document 37 Filed 09/25/13 Page 1 of 4
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

action. An applicant for Social Security benefits receiving a remand under sentence four of 42 

U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party, regardless of whether the applicant later succeeds in 

obtaining the requested benefits. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993). In this case, the 

matter was remanded under sentence four for further proceedings pursuant to the order of the 

court on cross-motions for summary judgment. ECF No. 32. The court must allow the fee award 

unless it finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified. Flores v. Shalala, 

49 F.3d 562, 568-69 (9th Cir. 1995). In this case, defendant does not contend its position was 

substantially justified.

The EAJA directs the court to award a reasonable fee. In determining whether a fee is 

reasonable, the court considers the hours expended, the reasonable hourly rate, and the results 

obtained. See Commissioner, INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154 (1990); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 

424 (1983); Atkins v. Apfel, 154 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 1998). Defendant does not contest the hourly 

rate claimed but contends the hours claimed are unreasonable. This contention is well taken. 

Plaintiff’s counsel has itemized hours related to an order to show cause which was issued because 

counsel had erroneously filed several social security actions in the wrong venue. ECF No. 24. It 

is unreasonable to charge either defendant or plaintiff’s client for hours attributable to the 

incompetence of plaintiff’s counsel. No award should be made for the 6.3 hours claimed in 

connection with the order to show cause and transfer of this action to the appropriate venue. 

Plaintiff’s counsel has also demonstrated no billing judgment with respect to the repeated use of 

0.1 hour increments for tasks which clearly do not take six minutes to accomplish. The court has 

carefully reviewed the tasks associated with the 0.1 hour increments (1.4 hours total) and has 

concluded these tasks should reasonably have taken no more than 0.5 hours total. Similarly, 

plaintiff’s counsel frequently bills 0.2 and 0.3 increments (3.8 hours total). The court concludes

these tasks cumulatively should reasonably have taken no more than 2 hours. The 3.9 hours 

claimed by plaintiff’s counsel for reviewing the Appeals Council denial and the ALJ decision, 

drafting a form complaint, and serving process is also unreasonable and should be reduced to a 

total of 1.0 hour. Plaintiff’s counsel has similarly claimed excessive hours for reviewing the 

administrative transcript, writing the confidential letter brief, drafting the opening brief, 

Case 2:13-cv-00230-GEB-CKD Document 37 Filed 09/25/13 Page 2 of 4
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

reviewing defendant’s response, drafting a reply and reviewing the findings and 

recommendations (24.7 hours). Although the administrative record was relatively extensive, this 

case did not present particularly complex issues and the briefing by plaintiff’s counsel was of 

inferior quality. The court concludes that no more than 19 hours were reasonably expended on 

these tasks. Finally, plaintiff’s counsel claims 1.5 hours incurred in connection with the motion 

for EAJA fees. Again, the amount claimed is inflated in light of counsel’s experience in 

preparing EAJA applications. One half hour was reasonably expended on this task. Plaintiff’s 

claimed costs of $101.80 are unsupported. The $79.60 associated with downloading briefs and 

the transcript is unreasonable in that attorneys of record receive one free electronic copy of all 

documents filed electronically. See http://www.pacer.gov/psc/efaq.html#CMECF (E.D. Cal. 

website, Frequently Asked Questions). The $19.5 claimed cost for certified mail is unreasonable 

in that plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status and the Marshal was directed to serve 

summons in this action. ECF No. 5. No award of costs should be made. In sum, the court will 

recommend that the number of hours compensated be reduced to 21.6 hours at the hourly rate of

$184.32 for worked performed in 2012 ($3,981.31) and 1.4 hours at the hourly rate of $186.55 for 

work performed in 2013 ($261.17) for a total of $4,242.48. The EAJA award must be made by 

this court to plaintiff, and not to counsel. See Astrue v. Ratliff, __ U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 2521 

(2010).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that fees pursuant to the EAJA be

awarded to plaintiff in the amount of $4,242.48.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:13-cv-00230-GEB-CKD Document 37 Filed 09/25/13 Page 3 of 4
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

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: September 24, 2013

dearmon0230.eaja

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:13-cv-00230-GEB-CKD Document 37 Filed 09/25/13 Page 4 of 4