(SS) Rocha v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:20-cv-00613-CDB
E.D. Cal.Oct 30, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Phillip Anthony Rocha obtained a sentence-four remand under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); the Court granted summary judgment and remanded on July 25, 2023, with judgment entered the same day.
- On October 25, 2023, parties filed a stipulated EAJA fee request seeking $9,000 for Plaintiff’s attorney, Jonathan O. Peña; Plaintiff did not seek taxable costs.
- The Commissioner does not oppose the stipulated fee award or the remand.
- The Court found the government’s position was not "substantially justified" and there were no special circumstances to deny fees under the EAJA.
- The Court considered the record (over 870 pages), multiple briefing issues, and concluded that approximately 37 hours at the statutory maximum hourly rate is reasonable for the work performed.
- The fee award is subject to any offsets under the Treasury Offset Program (TOP); if no offset applies, payment is to be made to counsel per Plaintiff’s assignment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prevailing party status | Rocha is a prevailing party because the Court ordered a sentence-four remand | Commissioner did not oppose remand | Court treated Rocha as prevailing party for EAJA purposes (Shalala) |
| Entitlement to EAJA fees | Rocha timely filed and is entitled to fees absent substantial justification | Commissioner did not assert substantial justification | Court found government position not substantially justified and awarded fees |
| Reasonableness of requested $9,000 | $9,000 equals ~37 hours at statutory max; reasonable given record size and briefs | No opposition to the amount | Court found the fee amount reasonable and commensurate with work performed |
| Payment and offsets (TOP) | Fees should be paid to counsel per Plaintiff’s assignment | Payment subject to any TOP offsets | Court awarded $9,000 and directed Commissioner to pay counsel unless TOP offsets apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993) (party who prevails in a sentence-four remand is a prevailing party)
- Van v. Barnhart, 483 F.3d 600 (9th Cir. 2007) (timeliness standard for EAJA fee petitions)
- Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 2005) (EAJA statutory maximum hourly rates and cost-of-living adjustments)
- Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010) (EAJA fee awards are subject to Treasury Offset Program offsets)