Ramos v. Commissioner Social Security Administration, No. 6:2020cv01500 - Document 25 (D. Or. 2022)
Court Description: Opinion and Order. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion 21 for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act and AWARDS Plaintiff attorney fees in the amount of $12,911.42. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file a supplemental motion for attorney fees that counsel incurred defending the fee petition. Signed on 7/27/22 by Judge Anna J. Brown. See attached 10 page Opinion and Order. (bb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ramos v. Commissioner Social Security Administration Doc. 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON JOSE R. , 1 6:20-cv-01500-BR Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant. SHERWOOD J. REESE LUKE MOEN-JOHNSON Drew L. Johnson, P.C. 1700 Valley River Drive Eugene, OR 97401 (541) 434-6466 Attorneys for Plaintiff NATALIE K. WIGHT United States Attorney RENATA GOWIE Assistant United States Attorney 1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204-2902 (503) 727-1021 1 In the interest of privacy this Court uses only the first name and the initial of the last name of the nongovernmental party in this case. 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com WILLY LE Acting Regional Chief Counsel JEFFREY E. STAPLES Special Assistant United States Attorney Social Security Administration 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, M/S 221A Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 615-3706 Attorneys for Defendant BROWN, Senior Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion (#22) for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) in which he seeks an award of attorney fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request for EAJA fees and AWARDS attorney fees in the amount of $12,911.42. ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY Plaintiff filed an application for DIB on December 12, 2017. The application was denied initially and on reconsideration. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a hearing on September 9, 2019. The ALJ issued a decision on October 10, 2019, in which he found Plaintiff is not entitled to benefits. That decision became the final decision of the Commissioner on June 29, 2020, when the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review. Plaintiff appealed the decision of the Commissioner to this 2 - OPINION AND ORDER Court. This Court reviewed the Commissioner's denial of benefits and issued an Opinion and Order on March 9, 2022, reversing the decision of the Commissioner and remanding the matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and award of benefits. for the immediate calculation The government did not file an appeal. On June 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed this Motion for EAJA Fees. Plaintiff seeks an award of attorney fees in the amount of $12,911.42, and requests leave to file a supplemental motion for attorney fees incurred in defending his Motion for EAJA fees. STANDARDS I. Award of Attorneys' Fees Under EAJA Under EAJA the Court may award attorney fees and costs to a plaintiff's attorney in an action against the United States or any agency or official of the United States when (1) the plaintiff is the prevailing party, (2) the Commissioner has not met her burden to show that her positions during the case were substantially justified or that special circumstances make such an award unjust, and (3) the requested attorney fees and costs are reasonable. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (1) (A). Arellano v. Smith, 279 F.3d 791, 792 See also Perez- (9th Cir. 2002). A "prevailing party" is one who has been awarded relief by the court on the merits of at least some of his claims. v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 754, 758 3 - OPINION AND ORDER (1980). Hanrahan "Enforceable judgments and court-ordered consent decrees create 'the material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties' necessary to permit an award of attorney's fees." Buckhannon Bd. and Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep't of Health and Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 604 (2001) (internal citation omitted). A prevailing plaintiff is not entitled to attorney fees under EAJA when the Commissioner's positions were substantially justified. 2002). Lewis v. Barnhart, 281 F.3d 1081, 1083 (9 th Cir. The Commissioner's positions are substantially justified when they are reasonably based both in law and in fact. (citing Pierce v. Underwood, 487 US. 552, 566 n.2 Id. (1988)). The Commissioner's failure to prevail on the merits of her positions does not raise a presumption of unreasonableness. United States v. Marolf, 277 F.3d 1156, 1162 (9 th Cir. 2002) (citing Kali v. Bowen, 854 F.2d 329, 332 (9 th Cir. 1988)). When the Commissioner opposes a claimant's fee request, she bears the burden to establish that her positions at each stage of the proceeding were "substantially justified." 149 F.3d 1051, 1053 (9 th Cir. 1998). Corbin v. Apfel, See also United States v. Real Property at 2659 Roundhill Drive, Alamo, Cal., 283 F.3d 1146, 1151 (9 th Cir. 2002). To prevail, therefore, the Commissioner must establish the positions taken by the Commissioner in opposition to the claimant's efforts to obtain Social Security benefits in both the proceedings before this 4 - OPINION AND ORDER Court and the underlying administrative action were substantially justified. See Lewis, 281 F.3d at 1085-86. The Commissioner's position "'must be justified in substance or in the main,' - that is, justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person." Gonzales, 408 F.3d at 618 Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988)). (quoting "Put another way, substantially justified means there is a dispute over which 'reasonable minds could differ.'" 618 Gonzales, 408 F.3d at (quoting League of Women Voters of Cal. v. FCC, 798 F.2d 12 5 5, 12 5 7 ( 9 th Cir . 19 8 6) ) . II. Calculating Attorney Fees EAJA caps the hourly rate for attorney fees at $125.00, but the statute allows the Court to make adjustments for cost of living or other appropriate "special factor[s] ." § 2412(d)(2)(A). 870, 876-77 28 U.S.C. "[U]nder EAJA; Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d (9th Cir. 2005); and Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1.6; the statutory maximum hourly rates under EAJA, with cost of living adjustments" are $207.78 for work performed in 2020 and $217.54 for work performed in 2021 and 2022. Supp. 3d 855, 867 (C.D. Cal. 2020). K.E.B. v. Saul, 497 F. See also https://www.ca9. uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000039 (last accessed July 26, 2022). The court may reduce an award of attorneys' fees under EAJA when the plaintiff's requested fees are unreasonable. 5 - OPINION AND ORDER Costa v. Comm'r, 690 F.3d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 2412 (d) (1) (A), 2412 (d) (2) (A)). The court applies the "lodestar" method set out in Hensley v. Eckerhart to determine whether a fee award is reasonable. (1983)). Id. See also Comm'r, INS v. Jean, (citing 461 U.S. 424, 433 496 U.S. 154, 161 (1990) ("[T]he district court's task of determining what fee is reasonable [under EAJA] is essentially the same as that described in Hensley."). To calculate the "lodestar" amount the court multiplies "the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation. reasonable hourly rate." Hensley, Costa, 461 U.S. at 433). by a 690 F.3d at 1135 (quoting To calculate the number of hours reasonably expended the court considers "whether, in light of the circumstances, the time could reasonably have been billed to a private client." Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433. A court may not apply de facto caps on the number of hours for which an attorney can be compensated under EAJA. F.3d at 1136. basis. Id. Costa, 690 Cases must be considered on an individualized In order to reduce the number of hours requested for a particular task, a court must explain why the amount of time requested is too high and provide specific reasons for making significant reductions. 6 - OPINION AND ORDER Id. at 1136-37. DISCUSSION As noted, Plaintiff seeks attorney fees in the amount of $12,911.42 comprised of 59.5 hours expended by counsel at the statutory rates of $207.78 per hour for 2020 and $217.54 per hour for 2021 and 2022. Defendant does not dispute Plaintiff is a prevailing party or assert there are any special circumstances that would make an award of attorney fees "unjust." Defendant, however, opposes Plaintiff's Motion on the basis that the amount of Plaintiff's requested fees is unreasonable. Specifically, Defendant notes the record in this matter was 433 pages; the case involved routine issues; and Plaintiff's counsel are experienced attorneys, and, therefore, they should be able to review an average transcript and to draft and to edit an opening brief in less than 44 hours. Accordingly, Defendant requests the Court reduce the requested attorney fees by 14.5 hours or $3,154.33. Defendant relies on a number of cases decided by other judges in this district in which they have approved smaller attorney-fee amounts. The Ninth Circuit, however, has cautioned against reviewing the amount of time spent in other cases to decide how much time an attorney could reasonably spend on the particular case before the court because that determination will always depend on case-specific factors including the complexity of the legal issues, the procedural history, the size of the record, and when counsel was retained. Laurie B. v. Comm'r, No. 7 - OPINION AND ORDER 6:20-CV-2173-JR, 2022 WL 2149477, at *1 (D. Or. June 13, 2022) (citing Costa v. Comm'r, 1136 (9th Cir. 2012)). 690 F.3d 1132, In addition, this Court and other judges in this District have held in other cases that approximately the same number of hours that Plaintiff's counsel spent in this were reasonable in those cases. Seer e.g.r Laurie B. v. Comm'r, No. 6:20-CV-2173-JR, 2022 WL 2149477, at *1 (D. Or. June 13, 2022) (finding 61.5 hours is a reasonable amount of time for litigating the matter); Parrish v. Comm'r, No. 1:16-CV-02246-BR, 2018 WL 1402584, at *3 (D. Or. Mar. 20, 2018) (finding 44 hours is a reasonable amount of time to review a 900-page record and to draft and edit opening brief); Kenneth A. v. Berryhill, No. 3:17-cv-01575-JR, 2019 WL 377613, at *5 (D. Or. Jan. 30, 2019) (finding 11.9 hours is a reasonable amount of time to review a 589-page record and 30.8 hours is a reasonable amount of time to draft an opening brief with "only three routine issues."). In addition, Plaintiff's counsel obtained excellent results. Specifically, the Court remanded this matter for the immediate award of benefits. The Supreme Court has noted "[w]he[n] a plaintiff has obtained excellent results, his attorney should recover a fully compensatory fee. Normally this will encompass all hours reasonably expended on the litigation, and indeed in some cases of exceptional success an enhanced award may be justified." Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 435 (1983). Finally, the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly reminded courts 8 - OPINION AND ORDER that "'lawyers are not likely to spend unnecessary time on contingency fee cases in the hope of inflating their fees' because '[t]he payoff is too uncertain.' 11 Costa, 690 F.3d at 1136 (quoting Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1112 (9th Cir. 2008)). "As a result, courts should generally defer to the 'winning lawyer's professional judgment as to how much time he was required to spend on the case.' 11 Costa, 690 F.3d at 1136 (quoting Moreno, 534 F.3d at 1112). The Court concludes on this record that the amount of time expended by counsel in this matter is not unreasonable and the amount of requested attorney fees is not excessive. Accordingly, the Court awards Plaintiff attorney fees in the amount of $12,911.42. The Court also grants Plaintiff leave to file a supplemental motion for attorney fees that counsel incurred defending Plaintiff's Motion for EAJA fees. CONCLUSION For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion (#21) for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act and AWARDS Plaintiff attorney fees in the amount of $12,911.42. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file a supplemental motion for attorney fees that counsel incurred defending the fee 9 - OPINION AND ORDER petition. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this ~ o)1 day of July, 2022. United States Senior District Judge 10 - OPINION AND ORDER
]]>
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.
