(SS) Torrez v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:21-cv-00671
E.D. Cal.May 2, 2025Background
- Plaintiff David Torrez successfully challenged the Social Security Commissioner's denial of benefits, resulting in a court-ordered remand for further proceedings.
- After prevailing, Torrez sought attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), filing a motion for such fees.
- The parties submitted a stipulated request agreeing to an award of $12,000 in attorney’s fees to Plaintiff’s counsel, contingent on several administrative requirements regarding fee assignment and any applicable Treasury offsets.
- The government neither claimed its position was substantially justified nor opposed the stipulated fee award, effectively conceding entitlement to EAJA fees.
- The court reviewed the reasonableness of the requested fees based on hours worked and rates consistent with EAJA caps for the relevant period.
- The court granted the stipulated fee request, ordered the Commissioner to pay $12,000 to Plaintiff (or to his counsel, if administrative conditions are met), and denied as moot Plaintiff's initial motion for fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to EAJA Fees | Prevailing party and fees timely sought per EAJA. | No opposition; does not claim substantial justification. | Fees granted as stipulated. |
| Reasonableness of Amount | Hours and hourly rate are reasonable for work done. | No dispute raised. | Amount is reasonable and granted. |
| Payment Direct to Counsel | If Plaintiff assigned right to fees and no federal debt, pay counsel directly. | Agreed—subject to administrative approval. | Payment may be made to counsel if conditions are satisfied. |
| Mootness of Prior Fee Motion | Initial motion for fees now redundant. | Stipulation resolves fee issue. | Initial fee motion denied as moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (a party who prevails with a sentence-four remand under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) qualifies as a prevailing party under EAJA)
- Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870 (Ninth Circuit maintains the list for statutory maximum hourly rates under the EAJA)
- Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to offsets under the Treasury Offset Program)