Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01253/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01253-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Sherry Slade
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Sengthiene Bosavanh, attorney for Plaintiff Sherry Slade, seeks an award of attorney fees 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). (Doc. 34.) Plaintiff did not oppose the motion. Defendant filed a 

provided an analysis of the request, noting “the Commissioner has a role ‘resembling that of a trustee’ 

for Plaintiff. (Doc. 35 at 2, quoting Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 798, n.6 (2002). On April 29, 

2015, the Magistrate Judge recommended the motion for attorney fees be granted. (Doc. 36.)

The parties were given fourteen days to file any objections, or until May 14, 2015. (Doc. 36.) 

Defendant filed timely objections the recommendations, asserting the decision of the Magistrate Judge 

contradicts the Court’s prior decision related to the EAJA fee request. (Doc. 37 at 3.) Defendant notes:

As the Magistrate Judge previously noted, Ms. Bosavanh repeatedly engaged in 

behavior that delayed the timely adjudication of her client’s case (Doc. Nos. 18 at 2; 32 

at 8). In fact, Ms. Bosavanh requested three extensions of time in this matter resulting 

in a four-month delay in adjudication (Doc. Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14). In its denial of Ms. 

Bosavanh’s third extension request, the Magistrate Judge explained that “Ms. Bosavanh 

SHERRY SLADE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01253 - LJO - JLT

ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING THE 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO 

42 U.S.C. § 406(b)

(Docs. 34, 36)

Case 1:12-cv-01253-LJO-JLT Document 38 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 3
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

has demonstrated her willingness to disregard the deadlines as ‘firm’ by continually 

seeking extensions of time without demonstrating good cause, or even providing an 

explanation” (Doc No. 18 at 2; 32 at 8). The Magistrate Judge went on to state in her 

EAJA recommendation that “Given Ms. Bosavanh’s unwillingness to adhere to the 

Court’s Scheduling Order in this action, the Court recommends fees related to the 

second and third requests for extensions of time be denied.” (Doc. No. 32 at 8). Again, 

this Court adopted the recommendation (Doc. No. 33).

Similarly, the Magistrate Judge has already determined that among the 58.3 

hours Ms. Bosavanh expended in this case, 19.5 hours were for clerical, redundant, or 

otherwise noncompensable tasks (Doc. No. 32). In fact, in the February 2014 EAJA 

recommendation, the Magistrate Judge determined that Ms. Bosavanh was only entitled 

to fees for 38.8 of the 58.3 hours requested (Doc. No. 32 at 12). In the current F&R, 

however, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Ms. Bosavanh be compensated for the 

full 58.3 hours (Doc. No. 36).

(Doc. 37 at 3-4.) In light of the prior findings, Defendant argues that Ms. Bosavanh should not be 

awarded 25% of the past due benefits awarded to her client. 

On the other hand, Defendant’s assertion that Ms. Bosavanh caused four months of delay in the 

action is not supported by the record. The parties filed four extensions of time in this action, of which 

three were filed by Plaintiff. The Court granted only two requests by Plaintiff, for Ms. Bosavanh to 

serve Plaintiff’s confidential letter brief. (Docs. 12, 14.) These extensions resulted in a sixty-day delay 

of the action. (See id.) The third request made by Plaintiff was denied, and Plaintiff filed the brief in 

compliance with the Court’s ordered deadline. (Doc. 18.) The final request for an extension of time 

was filed by Defendant, which resulted in the additional thirty-day delay. (Docs. 22, 203.) Defendant 

has not identified any cases that a two-month delay caused by Plaintiff’s counsel should result in the 

reduction of a fee award, and the Court has located none. Rather, a fee request should only be reduced 

for delays where counsel causes “excessive delay which resulted in an undue accumulation of past-due 

benefits.” See Crawford v. Astrue, 585 F.3d 1142, 1151 (9th Cir. 2009). As the Magistrate Judge 

found, Ms. Bosavanh did not “engage in severe dilatory conduct” such as that described by the Ninth 

Circuit in Crawford.

Finally, the Magistrate Judge noted “this Court determined the total time expended by Ms. 

Bosavanh was not reasonable given the routine and duplicative nature of many tasks, and awarded fees 

for 38.8 hours of work,” rather than the 58.3 hours reported by Ms. Bosavanh. (Doc. 36 at 3, citing 

Doc. 32 at 12; Doc. 33.) Thus, Defendant’s assertion that the Magistrate Judge failed to consider the 

Case 1:12-cv-01253-LJO-JLT Document 38 Filed 06/26/15 Page 2 of 3
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

prior reduction in time is unfounded. Rather, the Magistrate Judge found that the requested award was 

appropriate despite the reduction in hours because Ms. Bosavanh’s work resulted in the matter being 

remanded to an administrative law judge, where “Plaintiff ultimately received an award of benefits for 

disability.” (Doc. 36 at 3.) 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United 

School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 

Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations are supported 

by the record and proper analysis. 

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The Findings and Recommendations dated April 29, 2015 are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. The motion for attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) is GRANTED in the 

amount of $25,233.50; 

3. The Commissioner is DIRECTED to pay the amount directly to Ms. Bosavanh; and 

4. Ms. Bosavanh SHALL refund $7,243.95 to Plaintiff Sherry Slade.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 25, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01253-LJO-JLT Document 38 Filed 06/26/15 Page 3 of 3