Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01303/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01303-11/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Jason Travis Uhl
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

JASON TRAVIS UHL,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.

Case No. 1: 13-cv-01303-SMS

ORDER REQUESTING 

DOCUMENTATION SUBSTANTIATING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER THE 

EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT 

On March 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses under the 

Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Doc. 37. Therein, he seeks $11,814.08

in attorney’s fees for 65.95 hours expended on this case.1 In support of the motion are: (1) the 

declaration of Mr. Rohlfing, (2) an itemized statement of the hours expended by the attorneys and 

two paralegals, (3) an excerpt from the “United States Consumer Law Attorney Fee Survey Report 

2013-2014” by Ronald L. Burdge, Esq., and (4) the contingency agreement between Plaintiff and 

the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing. Included in the itemized statement are hours attorney 

Lawrence D. Rohlfing (“LDR”) claimed he spent in 2015 preparing the appeal before the Ninth 

Circuit. The Commissioner expressed opposition with the hours LDR spent preparing and drafting 

 

1

In his reply brief, Plaintiff requests additional fees for time expended reviewing the Commissioner’s 

opposition and preparing the reply brief, thereby bringing the total request to $12,575.20. Doc. 42. 

Case 1:13-cv-01303-SMS Document 43 Filed 06/09/16 Page 1 of 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

2

the opening brief. Doc. 41. To this, LDR asserts the hours claimed were reasonable because the 

brief “required a greater exploration and explanation” of the relevant topic and that it spanned 33-

pages long. Doc. 42. 

The Court cannot verify the validity of LDR’s assertions without the Ninth Circuit brief, 

which Plaintiff did not provide. It is Plaintiff’s burden, as the moving party here to prove the 

reasonableness of his request. See Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 897 (1984) (noting the burden 

lies with the applicant to demonstrate the reasonableness of his request). Accordingly, Plaintiff is 

directed to submit his Ninth Circuit opening brief to the Court within seven (7) days of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2016 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01303-SMS Document 43 Filed 06/09/16 Page 2 of 2