(“[B]ecause Carr's refusal to accept the Commissioner's request for remand and the results from subsequent disputed work did not accomplish any substantial advancement in his position, time spent opposing the Request was not reasonably expended.”); Hicks v. Saul, 2019 WL 4803218, *3 (D. Or. Oct. 2019) (relying on Carr); Kimberly R. v. Saul, 2020 WL 4059709, *2 (D. Or. 2020) (relying on Hicks). But the prevailing view in this district favors Plaintiff's position.
Judges in this district have consistently reduced EAJA fee awards by the number of hours spent on a reply brief under similar circumstances. Most recently, in Hicks v. Saul, No. 3:18-cv-00185-IM, 2019 WL 4803218, at *1 (D. Or. Oct. 1, 2019), the Commissioner moved to remand for further proceedings, the claimant filed a reply in support of a remand for benefits, and the district court elected to remand for further proceedings. Id.