(See generally Doc. No. 42.) See Hill v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 428 F.Supp.3d 253, 259 (E.D. Cal. 2019) (“A party who obtains a remand in a Social Security case is a prevailing party for purposes of the EAJA.” (citing Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300-01 (1993))); Gutierrez v. Barnhart, 274 F.3d 1255, 1258 (9th Cir. 2001) (“An applicant for disability benefits becomes a prevailing party for the purposes of the EAJA if the denial of her benefits is reversed and remanded regardless of whether disability benefits ultimately are awarded.”). Rather, the government argues that Plaintiff is not entitled to EAJA fees because the Commissioner's position was substantially justified.
Repeatedly, this Court and others in the Ninth Circuit indicated calendaring deadlines is a clerical task that should not being included in a fee award. See, e.g., Hill v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 428 F.Supp.3d 253, 265 (E.D. Cal. 2019) (observing clerical staff could “easily” complete “calendaring of court dates” and reducing the fee award); Campbell v. AMTRAK, 718 F.Supp.2d 1093, 1105 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (deducting calendaring as clerical work from the awarded fees); Doran v. Vicorp Rests., Inc., 407 F.Supp.2d 1120, 1125 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (noting “calendaring court dates” is clerical and reducing the fee award); T.B., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218434, at *97 (“calendaring [an] event is clerical”).
Citing Hill v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 428 F.Supp.3d 253, 265-66 (E.D. Cal. 2019), the Commissioner states that Plaintiff's counsel “has already [been] admonished. . . for unreasonable fee requests for her EAJA motions.” ECF No. 21, pg. 7.
Calendaring deadlines are a clerical task that should not be included in a fee award. See Hill v. Comm 'r of Soc. Sec., 428 F.Supp.3d 253, 265 (E.D. Cal. 2019) (observing clerical staff could “easily” complete “calendaring of court dates” and reducing the fee award). Further, communications such as emails and conferences may be considered clerical tasks when the discussion is about deadlines, filings, and other non-substantive administrative work.
This Court and others in the Ninth Circuit have determined that calendaring deadlines are clerical tasks that should not being included in a fee award. See, e.g., Moore, 2016 WL 3648949, at *3; Hill v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 428 F.Supp.3d 253, 265 (E.D. Cal. 2019) (observing clerical staff could “easily” complete “calendaring of court dates” and reducing the fee award); Campbell v. AMTRAK, 718 F.Supp.2d 1093, 1105 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (deducting calendaring as clerical work from the fee award); Doran v. Vicorp Rests., Inc., 407 F.Supp.2d 1120, 1125 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (noting “calendaring court dates” is clerical and reducing the fee award). Likewise, tasks related to scheduling are clerical, non-compensable tasks.
Courts have determined these tasks are clerical in nature, and time expended should not be awarded. See, e.g., Moore v. Chase, Inc., 2016 WL 3648949, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 7, 2016) (providing examples of nonbillable clerical tasks, including “creating indexes for a binder; filing emails, memoranda, and other correspondence; updating the case calendar with new dates; copying, scanning, and faxing documents; and filing or serving documents”); Hill v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 428 F.Supp.3d 253, 265 (E.D. Cal. 2019) (observing clerical staff could “easily” complete “calendaring of court dates” and reducing the fee award); Campbell v. AMTRAK, 718 F.Supp.2d 1093, 1105 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (deducting calendaring as clerical work from the fee award); Nadarajah, 569 F.3d at 921; Garcia v. Colvin, 2013 WL 5347494, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2013) (observing the “document emailing and e-filing constitutes clerical or secretarial work and should not be awarded as these activities should be considered overhead costs,” and explaining “filing documents is a clerical task, regardless of whether counsel has delegated the authority to his paralegal to access his CM/ECF account”); United States v. One 2008 Toyota Rav 4 Sports Utility Vehicle, 2012 WL 5272281, at *12 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2012) (declining to award fees for time spent e-filing documents with the court); Nadarajah,
This Court and others in the Ninth Circuit indicated calendaring deadlines is a clerical task that should not being included in a fee award. See, e.g., Hill v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 428 F.Supp.3d 253, 265 (E.D. Cal. 2019) (observing clerical staff could “easily” complete “calendaring of court dates” and reducing the fee award); Campbell v. AMTRAK, 718 F.Supp.2d 1093, 1105 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (deducting calendaring as clerical work from the fee award); Doran v. Vicorp Rests., Inc., 407 F.Supp.2d 1120, 1125 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (noting “calendaring court dates” is clerical and reducing the fee award). Likewise, tasks related to scheduling are clerical, non-compensable tasks.
This Court and others in the Ninth Circuit indicated calendaring deadlines is a clerical task that should not being included in a fee award. See, e.g., Hill v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 428 F.Supp.3d 253, 265 (E.D. Cal. 2019) (observing clerical staff could “easily” complete “calendaring of court dates” and reducing the fee award); Campbell v. AMTRAK, 718 F.Supp.2d 1093, 1105 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (deducting calendaring as clerical work from the fee award); Doran v. Vicorp Rests., Inc., 407 F.Supp.2d 1120, 1125 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (noting “calendaring court dates” is clerical and reducing the fee award).
In addition, Plaintiff's counsel cites his own cases litigated in this District, and recent cases in the Ninth Circuit, that determined hours “similar to and even well above those requested in Plaintiff's petition were reasonable.'” (Doc. No. 35 at 7-8 (citing e.g., Chavez-Alvarez v. Comm 'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 2021 WL 3207035 (E.D. Cal Jul. 29, 2021)(finding 71 hours of attorney time reasonable but applying 10 percent reduction); Allen v. Berryhill, 2019 WL 343422 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2019 (finding 70.85 hours was not “per se” unreasonable but reducing fees by 5 percent); Kirk v. Berryhill, 244 F.Supp.3d 1077, 1086 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2018 (finding 104 hours of attorney time reasonable); Hill v. Comm r Soc. Sec. Admin., 428 F.Supp.3d 253, 267 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2019 (finding 112 hours of attorney time reasonable)). The Court notes, while comparison to other cases is informative in assessing the reasonableness of fee requests, the Court is constrained to focus on the specific facts of the case at hand.
"The Court has an independent duty to review evidence of hours worked and tasks undertaken to determine the reasonableness of the fees requested for the case." Hill v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. , 428 F. Supp. 3d 253, 263 (E.D. Cal. 2019) (citing Hensley , 461 U.S. at 433, 436–47, 103 S.Ct. 1933 ). 1. Hourly Rates