(SS) Shams v. Commissioner of Social Security
2:21-cv-01437-AC
E.D. Cal.Jul 17, 2023Background
- Noorzia Shams sued the Commissioner of Social Security; case filed August 11, 2021.
- On March 24, 2023 the court granted Shams’s summary-judgment motion and remanded for further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); judgment entered for plaintiff.
- Shams timely moved for attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) within 30 days of final judgment.
- The Commissioner did not oppose entitlement, the requested hourly rate, or the reported hours, and did not argue its position was substantially justified.
- The court found the requested rate and hours fall within the Ninth Circuit’s statutory maximums and awarded EAJA fees of $3,465.51 to plaintiff.
- The EAJA award must be paid to plaintiff, though payment may be made to plaintiff’s attorney if no federal debt offset applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement as prevailing party | Shams contends she is a prevailing party because the court granted summary judgment and remanded under sentence four. | Commissioner does not dispute entitlement. | Court: Shams is a prevailing party (sentence-four remand qualifies). |
| Timeliness of EAJA application | Application filed within 30 days of final judgment. | No dispute. | Court: Application is timely. |
| Whether government’s position was substantially justified | Shams alleges the government was not substantially justified (necessary to recover EAJA fees). | Commissioner did not argue its position was substantially justified. | Court: No substantial-justification defense raised; fees award appropriate. |
| Reasonableness of fee amount, rate, and payment recipient | Shams requested rates/hours within Ninth Circuit caps and seeks $3,465.51; counsel has fee agreement. | Commissioner does not oppose rate/hours; notes EAJA award must be made to plaintiff. | Court: Awarded $3,465.51 as reasonable; award entered to plaintiff, but payment may be made to attorney if no federal debt offset. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993) (sentence-four remand establishes prevailing-party status for EAJA purposes)
- Commissioner, INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154 (1990) (courts consider rate, hours, and results in determining reasonable EAJA fees)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (standard for calculating reasonable attorney’s fees based on hours reasonably expended)
- Flores v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 562 (9th Cir. 1995) (government bears burden to show its position was substantially justified on issues prompting remand)
- Sorenson v. Mink, 239 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2001) (cost-of-living adjustments to EAJA statutory cap are permissible)
- Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 2005) ( Ninth Circuit maintains annually adjusted EAJA maximum hourly rates list)
- Astrue v. Ratliffe, 130 S. Ct. 2521 (2010) (EAJA fees are awarded to the litigant, not counsel, though payment may be made to counsel subject to federal offset rules)