Summary
The document contains findings and recommendations concerning Plaintiff Samly Milavong’s motion for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act in a Social Security action. The court recommends granting the motion and awarding $7,190.03 for 28.55 hours of work at an hourly rate of $251.84. The award is payable to the plaintiff, subject to any government debt offset, with potential direct payment to counsel under the fee assignment if no offset applies.
Holdings
- A Social Security claimant who obtains a sentence-four remand is a prevailing party for purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act, regardless of whether benefits are ultimately awarded.
- The Commissioner did not establish that the government's position was substantially justified or that special circumstances made an EAJA award unjust.
- The fee application was timely because it was filed within thirty days after the sentence-four judgment became final and nonappealable.
- The requested $7,190.03 award for 28.55 hours at an hourly rate of $251.84 was reasonable.
- An EAJA fee award is payable to the litigant and is subject to offset for any qualifying federal debt; if no debt exists, payment may be made directly to counsel under a valid assignment.
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff was entitled to attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act after obtaining a sentence-four remand in the Social Security action.
- Whether the requested hourly rate and 28.55 hours of attorney time were reasonable.
- Whether the EAJA award should be payable to Plaintiff, subject to any federal-government debt offset, rather than directly to Plaintiff's counsel.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (24)
- Gutierrez v. Barnhart, 274 F.3d 1255, 1257-58 (9th Cir. 2001)(followed)
- Nichols v. Dudek, No. 1:24-cv-00217-SKO, 2025 WL 1159062, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2025)(followed)
- Bell v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 2:23-cv-2895-DMC, 2025 WL 1433854, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 19, 2025)(followed)
- Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 102 (1991)(followed)
- Akopyan v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 852, 854 (9th Cir. 2002)(followed)
- Perez-Arellano v. Smith, 279 F.3d 791, 793 (9th Cir. 2002)(followed)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 897 (1984)(followed)
- Commissioner, INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 163 (1990)(followed)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983)(followed)
- Atkins v. Apfel, 154 F.3d 986, 988 (9th Cir. 1998)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 24.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…