L.R.M. v. Leland Dudek, et al.

United States District Court for the Northern District of California · May 12, 2025 · No. 23-cv-02647-LJC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted Plaintiff L.R.M.’s application for attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The court found that the government’s position was not substantially justified, that Plaintiff was a prevailing and eligible party following a sentence-four remand in a Social Security disability case, and that the requested fees and expenses were reasonable. The court awarded $8,733.13, payable directly to Plaintiff’s counsel subject to any government debt offset.

Holdings

  1. The government's position was not substantially justified because the ALJ's decision contained serious errors and the government lacked a reasonable basis in law and fact for defending it.
  2. Plaintiff was a prevailing party and was otherwise eligible for an EAJA award.
  3. Plaintiff's EAJA application was timely.
  4. The requested compensation for 27.9 attorney hours at $244.62 per hour and 14.3 paralegal hours at $130 per hour, totaling 42.2 hours, was reasonable.
  5. Plaintiff was entitled to recover $49.23 for Westlaw research as a reasonable EAJA expense, but not the claimed $405 filing fee.
  6. The award should be paid directly to Plaintiff's counsel pursuant to the assignment, subject to any debt offset owed to the government.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the government's position in the administrative proceedings and in defending the ALJ's decision was substantially justified under the EAJA.
  2. Whether Plaintiff was a prevailing and otherwise eligible party under the EAJA.
  3. Whether Plaintiff's EAJA application was timely.
  4. Whether the requested attorney and paralegal rates and hours were reasonable.
  5. Whether the requested legal-research expense was compensable under the EAJA.
  6. Whether the EAJA award could be paid directly to Plaintiff's counsel, subject to any government debt offset.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (25)

  • Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1397, 1401, 1405 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
  • Gutierrez v. Barnhart, 274 F.3d 1255, 1257-58, 1261 (9th Cir. 2001)(followed)
  • United States v. Rubin, 97 F.3d 373, 376 (9th Cir. 1996)(followed)
  • Meier v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 867, 873 (9th Cir. 2013)(followed)
  • Flores v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 562, 570 n.11 (9th Cir. 1995), as amended on denial of rehearing (June 5, 1995)(followed)
  • Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 302 (1993)(followed)
  • Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)(followed)
  • Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870, 876-77 (9th Cir. 2005)(followed)
  • Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 590 (2008)(followed)
  • Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1211 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 25.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…