Jose Castaneda v. Michael J Astrue, No. 5:2009cv01850 - Document 20 (C.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Oswald Parada GRANTING Plaintiff's 15 Petition for Approval of EAJA Fees: (see document image for further details). Plaintiffs Petition is partially GRANTED, and Plaintiffs counsel is awarded total EAJA fees of $4,056.46. (ad)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jose Castaneda v. Michael J Astrue Doc. 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 JOSE CASTANEDA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) Case No. EDCV 09-1850-OP MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF S PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF EAJA FEES 17 I. 18 PROCEEDINGS 19 On May 14, 2010, Jose Castaneda ( Plaintiff ) filed a Motion for Attorney 20 Fees and Expenses Under the Equal Access to Justice Act ( Motion ) seeking a 21 fee award in the amount of $4,161.16, consisting of 20.5 hours of attorney time at 22 a rate of $172.24 per hour, and 5.2 hours of paralegal time at a rate of $120.00 per 23 hour. (Mot. at 4, Ex. 1.) On June 28, 2010, Respondent filed an Opposition to the 24 Motion. On July 9, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Reply. Plaintiff also is seeking an 25 additional $848.86 for preparation of the Reply (4.58 attorney hours at $172.24 26 per hour and .5 paralegal hours at $120 per hour). (Reply at 19.) Thus, the total 27 amount requested is $5,010.02. (Id.) 28 / / / 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 II. 2 DISCUSSION 3 A. Legal Standard. 4 The EAJA provides in pertinent part: 5 Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a court shall 6 award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other 7 expenses . . . incurred by that party in any civil action (other than cases 8 sounding in tort), including proceedings for judicial review of agency 9 action, brought by or against the United States in any court having 10 jurisdiction of that action, unless the court finds that the position of the 11 United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances 12 make an award unjust. 13 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). To award attorney s fees under the EAJA, the Court 14 must determine that: (1) the claimant was the prevailing party; (2) the government 15 has failed to show that its position was substantially justified or that special 16 circumstances make the award unjust; and (3) the requested fees and costs are 17 reasonable. Id. §§ 2412(d)(1)(A), 2412(d)(2)(A). 18 B. The Requested Fees Are Unreasonable. 19 The Commissioner does not contest the hourly rate that counsel claims, but 20 only disputes the reasonableness of the hours billed. He claims that the time spent 21 was excessive considering the following factors: (1) Mr. LaTour and Ms. Kravig, 22 the attorney who prepared the settlement proposal, bill at the same rate despite 23 differing levels of experience (Opp n at 5); (2) the settlement proposal, which is 24 seventeen single-space pages setting out seven issues, really included only two 25 issues, most of which did not persuade the Commissioner to agree to a remand, 26 and was overly long and repetitive (id. at 5-6); (3) frontloading of work to 27 prepare the settlement document undermines the goals of the settlement procedure 28 which aim to reduce litigation time and expense (id. at 7); (4) Plaintiff raised no 2 1 novel issues, the administrative record was not particularly lengthy, and it appears 2 counsel spent unnecessary time researching matters that did not require original 3 research, and drafting a brief by simply reframing one issue into six separate 4 issues. (id.); and (5) the time spent preparing an itemization for the Motion and 5 other preparation for the Motion was excessive and unreasonable (id. at 8.) 6 Specifically, the Commissioner claims these issues warrant a reduction to no 7 more than twelve hours of attorney time and four hours of paralegal time, for a 8 total award of $2,546.88. (Id.) He also argues that the Court should determine 9 whether any fees requested for time spent on the Reply are reasonable and 10 compensable. (Id.) 11 This Court has reviewed the settlement proposal prepared by counsel. 12 (Opp n Ex. 1.) It contains seven issues which appear to be thoroughly analyzed 13 and presented, with accompanying record cites and legal analysis. The Court finds 14 that not all of the attorney time billed for researching and preparing the settlement 15 proposal (15.5 hours) was justified and reasonable because many of the issues are 16 so closely related and repetitive. The Court finds, therefore, that ten hours would 17 be more reasonable for this billing entry. The remaining attorney billing entries, 18 totaling 5 hours, the Court finds to be reasonable. Thus, total attorney time 19 allowed before the Reply, is 15.0 hours, for a total attorney billing of $2,583.60 20 (15 x $172.24). 21 Plaintiff also seeks an additional $848.86 for attorney preparation of the 22 Reply.1 (Reply at 8.) A prevailing party under the EAJA is entitled to fees for the 23 litigation over the fees. Comm r, INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 160, 110 S. Ct. 2316, 24 110 L. Ed. 2d 989 (9th Cir. 1998). Having reviewed the EAJA briefings, the 25 Court finds that this fee request is reasonable. Thus, total attorney billing, 26 27 1 This is based on 4.58 hours in attorney time at $172.24 per hour and .5 28 hours in paralegal time at $120.00 per hour. (Reply at 19.) 3 1 including the Reply, amounts to $3,372.46 (19.58 hours x $172.24 per hour). 2 Defendant argues, without any support, that the total paralegal time spent 3 (prior to the Reply) should be reduced from 5.2 hours to 4 hours. The Court has 4 reviewed the services provided and determines that no reduction is warranted. 5 Thus, the total paralegal time allowed (including an additional .5 for the Reply), is 6 5.7 hours for a total allowed paralegal billing of $684.00 (5.7 x $120.00). 7 Accordingly, the Court finds that an EAJA fee award of $4,056.46 8 ($3,372.46 + $684.00) is reasonable, as required under the EAJA. 9 C. 10 Proper Payee Under the EAJA. Plaintiff requests that the award be paid directly to her attorney. (Mot. at 3.) 11 Apparently, Plaintiff signed an agreement stating that he assigned EAJA fees to 12 his attorney. (Reply at 13.) Defendant argues that the assignment is not relevant 13 because the Supreme Court has recently held that an EAJA fee award is payable to 14 the litigant. (Opp n at 9 (citing Astrue v. Ratliff, --- S. Ct. ----, 2010 WL 2346547 15 (U.S. June 14, 2010).) 16 In Ratliff, the Supreme Court held that a § 2412(d) fees award is payable to 17 the litigant and is therefore subject to a Government offset to satisfy a pre-existing 18 debt that the litigant owes the United States. Ratliff, 2010 WL 2346547, at *3. 19 The Supreme Court noted that although the government had a history of paying 20 EAJA awards directly to attorneys in certain cases, in 2006 it discontinued that 21 practice, making direct payments to the attorneys only in cases where the 22 plaintiff does not owe a debt to the government and assigns the right to receive the 23 fees to the attorney. Id. at *7. In this case, although Plaintiff has assigned the 24 right to receive the fees to her attorney, it is not known whether he owes a debt to 25 the government. 26 The Court notes, however, that an assignment of the fee award from 27 Plaintiff to Plaintiff s counsel does not prevent offset of the award. Quade ex rel. 28 Quade v. Barnhart, 570 F. Supp. 2 1164 (D. Ariz. 2008) (called into doubt on 4 1 other grounds by Ratliff) (citing Whitmore v. Astrue, No. C 06-05062 SI, 2008 2 WL 276387, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2008)). The plaintiff in a case has the 3 beneficial interest in EAJA attorney s fees, which the Treasury Department has the 4 authority to offset, despite any assignment interest. Id. Thus: 5 If a person . . . assigns the right to receive a Federal payment to 6 a third party . . . the assigned payment will be subject to offset to . . . 7 collect delinquent debts owed by th assignor unless . . . the debtor has 8 properly assigned the right to such payments and the debt arose after the 9 effective date of the assignment. 10 31 C.F.R. §§ 285.5(e)(6)(i) & (ii)(C); see also Whitmore, 2008 WL 276387, at *5. 11 Consequently, an assignment only protects the attorney from offset of fees for 12 debts of the plaintiff arising after the assignment becomes effective. Quade, 570 13 F. Supp. 2d at 1179. The ultimate result is that an attorney representing a social 14 security claimant and expecting to receive fees under the EAJA is not reasonably 15 assured to any fees. Id. 16 The Court concludes that in light of the assignment, the amount awarded 17 herein, subject to any legitimate offset, should be paid directly to Plaintiff s 18 counsel. 19 III. 20 ORDER 21 For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff s Petition is partially GRANTED, 22 and Plaintiff s counsel is awarded total EAJA fees of $4,056.46. 23 24 25 26 DATED: July 20, 2010 HONORABLE OSWALD PARADA United States Magistrate Judge 27 28 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
