Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Michael Andrew Wyatt sued the Commissioner of Social Security in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California under Case No. 1:23-cv-01189-CDB. Both parties consented to the jurisdiction of a U.S. magistrate judge for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). On July 28, 2026, the court granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, making Wyatt the prevailing party in the Social Security action.
On October 28, 2026, Wyatt filed a stipulation requesting $6,600.00 in attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), to be paid to his counsel, Jonathan O. Pena. The parties agreed that the fee award should be made payable to Plaintiff, but if the Department of the Treasury determined that Plaintiff owed no federal debt, the Commissioner would cause payment to be made directly to counsel.
The court treated the request as timely and found that a party who wins a favorable judgment in a Social Security case qualifies as a prevailing party under Shalala v. Schaefer and Van v. Barnhart. The fee request followed the court's July 2026 summary-judgment ruling in Plaintiff's favor.
The Court’s Holding
The court applied the EAJA standard: a court shall award attorney fees to a prevailing party unless the government's position was substantially justified or special circumstances make an award unjust. The court found that the government did not show its position was substantially justified, that no special circumstances made the award unjust, and that the Commissioner did not oppose the requested relief.
On reasonableness, the court noted that even at the published 2025 maximum EAJA rate of $258.46 per hour, $6,600 would equal roughly 25.5 hours of attorney time. Counsel's timesheet showed 27.9 hours spent intaking the case, reviewing and outlining the approximately 598-page administrative record, and preparing the summary-judgment motion. The court found the work and hours reasonable and commensurate with what an attorney reasonably would need, especially given the favorable result obtained.
The court therefore granted the stipulated EAJA request and directed the Commissioner to pay $6,600 to Plaintiff as the prevailing party. Fees are payable to Plaintiff, but if Treasury determines Plaintiff owes no federal debt, payment must be made directly to Plaintiff's counsel under the stipulation; EAJA fees remain subject to any Treasury Offset Program offset.
Key Takeaways
- A Social Security claimant who obtains a favorable judgment is a prevailing party eligible to seek fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
- The court may award EAJA fees when the government's position was not substantially justified and no special circumstances make the award unjust, particularly when the Commissioner does not oppose the request.
- The court independently reviewed the requested amount against the statutory maximum rate and the timesheet, finding 27.9 hours reasonable for a case with an approximately 598-page administrative record.
- An EAJA award is payable to the prevailing party, but payment may be redirected to counsel only if the Treasury Offset Program confirms that the plaintiff owes no federal debt.
- The order is an effective fee award by a magistrate judge acting with the parties' consent, not a remand or a mere recommendation.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how EAJA fee awards operate after a claimant prevails in Social Security litigation: prevailing-party status, timeliness, lack of substantial justification, and reasonableness of hours all support an award even when the government does not contest the fee request.
It also highlights the practical payment structure for EAJA awards: the fee belongs to the prevailing party, while direct payment to counsel depends on a Treasury determination that no federal debt offset applies.