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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Robert Pederzolli, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Commissioner of Social Security 

Administration, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-17-04705-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is the parties’ Stipulation to an Award of Attorney Fees 

under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. 32.) 

 “The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) instructs that this court ‘shall’ grant 

attorneys[’] fees to a prevailing plaintiff ‘unless’ the government meets its burden to 

demonstrate that both its litigation position and the agency decision on review were 

‘substantially justified.’” Campbell v. Astrue, 736 F.3d 867, 868 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting 

28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(a)). Here, the government stipulates to an award of attorneys’ fees 

in lieu of arguing that its position was substantially justified, and therefore the Court must 

grant attorneys’ fees. See, e.g., Robinson v. Berryhill, 2018 WL 7140957, *2 (9th Cir. 

2018) (“Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation and the [EAJA], 24 U.S.C. § 2412(d), 

attorney’s fees . . . and costs . . . are awarded.”); Wheatley v. Berryhill, 2018 WL 6579351, 

*1 (9th Cir. 2018) (same). 

 Attorneys’ fees pursuant to the EAJA “shall not be awarded in excess of $125 per 

hour unless the court determines that an increase in the cost of living or a special factor, 
- 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 

such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings involved, justifies 

a higher fee.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). “Appropriate cost-of-living increases are 

calculated by multiplying the $125 statutory rate by the annual average consumer price 

index figure for all urban consumers (‘CPI–U’) for the years in which counsel's work was 

performed, and then dividing by the CPI–U figure for March 1996, the effective date of 

EAJA’s $125 statutory rate.” Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870, 876–77 (9th Cir. 

2005). However, the Ninth Circuit has simplified this process by posting the statutory 

maximum rates from 2009 to the present on its website, available at 

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000039. 

Normally in stipulations like this one, the parties provide the Court with an 

accounting of the number of attorney hours billed in each year, such that the Court can 

determine that the attorneys’ fees do not exceed the statutory maximum. Here, the parties 

provided no such accounting. Nevertheless, based on the docket, this case clearly took a 

significant amount of time for Plaintiffs’ counsel, such that it is clear to the Court that the 

modest amount of fees requested ($4800) is reasonable. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulation for Award of Attorney Fees under 

the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. 21) is granted and Plaintiff is awarded $4800 in 

attorneys’ fees. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, if the 

government determines that Plaintiff does not owe a debt subject to offset under the 

Treasury Offset Program, 31 U.SC. § 3716(c), and the government agrees 

to waive the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3727, the government 

shall pay the EAJA award to Plaintiff’s counsel. If there is a debt owed under the Treasury 

Offset Program, the remaining EAJA award after offset will be paid by a check made out 

to Plaintiff but delivered to Plaintiff’s counsel. 

 Dated this 7th day of June, 2019.