Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lule v. Berryhill

United States District Court, E.D. California

May 9, 2017

MARIE E. LULE, Plaintiff,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.



         Marie E. Lule seeks an award for attorney's fees and expenses pursuant to the Equal Access for Justice Act under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). (Doc. 21) Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant”), opposes the motion. (Doc. 22)

         Because the Administrative Law Judge's decision was contrary to established standards set forth by the Regulations and the Ninth Circuit, the Commissioner fails to show the decision, or the defense thereof, was substantially justified. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees under the EAJA is GRANTED in the amount of $4, 677.50.

         I. Relevant Procedural History

         Plaintiff initiated the action before this Court on October 26, 2015, seeking judicial review of the decision denying her application for benefits under the Social Security Act. (Doc. 1) The Court found the ALJ erred in evaluating the medical evidence and rejecting the opinions of Plaintiff's treating physician. (Doc. 19 at 8-11) Therefore, the Court remanded the action for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Id. at 12)

         Following the entry of judgment, Plaintiff filed the application for fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) now pending before the Court on March 21, 2017. (Doc. 21) Defendant filed an opposition to the motion on April 5, 2017 (Doc. 22), to which Plaintiff filed a reply on April 21, 2017 (Doc. 23). Including time spent on the reply, Plaintiff seeks a total award of $4, 905. (Id. at 6)

         II. Requests for EAJA Fees

         The EAJA provides that a court shall award fees and costs incurred by a prevailing party “in any civil action . . . including proceedings for judicial review of agency action, brought by or against the United States . . . unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). A party eligible to receive an award of attorney fees under the EAJA must be the prevailing party who received a final judgment in the civil action. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(H).

         The party seeking the award of EAJA fees has the burden of proof that fees requested are reasonable. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434, 437 (1983); see also Atkins v. Apfel, 154 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 1998) (specifically applying these principles to fee requests under the EAJA). As a result, “[t]he fee applicant bears the burden of documenting the appropriate hours expended in the litigation, and must submit evidence in support of those hours worked.” Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1397 (9th Cir. 1992); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B) (“A party seeking an award of fees and other expenses shall . . . submit to the court an application for fees and other expenses which shows . . . the amount sought, including an itemized statement from any attorney . . . stating the actual time expended”). The court has an independent duty to review the evidence to determine the reasonableness of the hours requested in each case. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433, 436-47.

         Where documentation of the expended time is inadequate, the court may reduce the requested award. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433, 436-47. Further, “hours that were not ‘reasonably expended” should be excluded from an award, including “hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Id. at 434. A determination of the number of hours reasonably expended is within the Court's discretion. Cunningham v. County of Los Angeles, 879 F.2d 481, 484-85 (9th Cir. 1988).

         III. Discussion and Analysis

         A claimant who receives a sentence four remand in a Social Security case is a prevailing party for EAJA purposes. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 301-02 (1993); Flores v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 562, 568 (9th Cir. 1995). Consequently, Plaintiff was the prevailing party because the Court ordered a remand of the matter for further proceedings pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 19) Defendant does not dispute that Plaintiff is a prevailing party, but argues the position of the Commissioner was substantially justified. (Doc. 22 at 2-3)

         The burden of proof that the position was substantially justified rests on the government. Scarborough v. Principi, 54 U.S. 401, 403 (2004); Gonzales v. Free Speech Coalition, 408 F.3d 613, 618 (9th Cir. 2005). The Supreme Court has defined “substantially justified” as “justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person.” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988). In addition, “[a] substantially justified position must have a reasonable basis in both law and fact.” Gutierrez v. Barnhart, 274 F.3d 1255, 1258 (9th Cir. 2001).

         Establishing that the government's position was substantially justified is a two-step process. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(D). First, Defendant must demonstrate “the action or failure to act by the agency” was substantially justified. Second, Defendant must establish the position taken in the civil action was substantially justified. Id. Thus, the Court must find that both the ALJ's decision and the Commissioner's arguments to this Court in defense of the administrative decision must have been substantially justified. Kali v. Bowen, 854 F.2d 329, 332 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Meier v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 867, 870 (9th ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.