Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Michelle V. filed a civil complaint on July 22, 2025, seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s denial of her applications for Social Security disability and supplemental security income benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The parties consented to the court’s jurisdiction and engaged in mandatory settlement discussions per a scheduling order. After briefing, the court issued a judgment on June 30, 2026, reversing the Commissioner’s decision and remanding the case for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court found the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) committed reversible error by failing to incorporate a medical assessment from Dr. Durr regarding the plaintiff’s moderate limitations in maintaining attendance and performing safety-related work activities, or to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting those limitations. On August 25, 2026, the parties filed a joint motion requesting $8,500.00 in attorney fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), and costs under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920, 2412. The order therefore addresses the present procedural record and does not decide questions the court expressly left for later proceedings.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the joint motion in full, awarding $8,500.00 in attorney fees to the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, Inc. The court held that the plaintiff is a prevailing party because she obtained a sentence-four remand reversing the Commissioner’s decision, which materially altered the parties’ legal relationship. The Commissioner bore the burden of proving his position was substantially justified but made no such argument in the joint motion, thus failing to meet that burden. No special circumstances rendered an award unjust. The requested fee of $8,500.00 for 35.2 hours of work (31.4 attorney hours, 3.8 paralegal hours) yielded an effective hourly rate of approximately $241.48, which falls below the Ninth Circuit’s cost-of-living-adjusted statutory maximum of $258.46 for 2025. The court found the hours expended reasonable, citing Ninth Circuit precedent that 20 to 40 hours is the typical range for Social Security cases. The result is limited to the relief and posture described in the order; it should not be read as resolving claims or issues the court did not reach.
Key Takeaways
- A sentence-four remand under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) confers prevailing party status for EAJA fees even if further administrative proceedings are required.
- The government bears the burden of proving its position was substantially justified; filing a joint motion for fees without contesting justification constitutes a failure to meet that burden.
- The Ninth Circuit applies cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) to the EAJA statutory cap of $125/hour using the Consumer Price Index; the adjusted maximum for 2025 was $258.46/hour.
- Courts in the Southern District of California routinely find 20–40 total hours reasonable for Social Security litigation resulting in a sentence-four remand.
- The fee award is payable to the plaintiff’s counsel (Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, Inc.) rather than the plaintiff directly.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the routine application of EAJA fee-shifting in Social Security cases where a plaintiff secures a sentence-four remand. It reinforces that the Commissioner’s failure to oppose a fee motion—or to articulate any basis for substantial justification—effectively concedes the fee entitlement. The decision also provides a current benchmark for COLA-adjusted rates in the Ninth Circuit ($258.46 for 2025) and confirms the district court’s practice of referencing its own prior orders (Krebs, Darren Jeffrey C.) to assess hour reasonableness. The ruling is procedural and fact-specific, leaving no open legal issues. Practitioners should track the stated deadlines and the precise form of relief, because later proceedings may change the parties’ positions without altering what this order itself decided.