Patu v. Commissioner of Social Security

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
SIUA TUIENA PATU,
Plaintiff,
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY, LELAND DUDEK,
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
CIV. NO. 25-00040 DKW-RT
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT
TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO
JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 2412
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT
TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 2412
On June 23, 2025, Plaintiff’s attorney Edward Wicklund (“Mr. Wicklund”),
filed the instant Consent1 Motion for Attorney’s [sic] Fees Pursuant to the Equal
Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (“Fee Motion”) on behalf of his client,
Plaintiff Siua Tuiena Patu (“Plaintiff”). 	Plaintiff requests $1,205.15 in attorneys’
fees for 7.8 hours of work performed on this case. ECF No. 17-1. Plaintiff has not
requested any costs. Notably, no opposition was filed.
1 It is unclear why Plaintiff refers to her Fee Motion as a “Consent” motion. It is
unnecessary here to title the Fee Motion as a “Consent” motion. The Court shall
thus disregard this reference.
Case 1:25-cv-00040-DKW-RT Document 18 Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 9
PageID.<pageID>

2
The Court decides the Fee Motion without a hearing pursuant to Rule 7.1(c)
of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District
of Hawaii (“Local Rules”). After careful consideration of the Fee Motion, records
in this case and applicable law, the Court FINDS that Plaintiff is entitled to her
attorneys’ fees and RECOMMENDS that the Fee Motion be GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) on
August 9, 2022, alleging that she was disabled beginning April 5, 2020. ECF No.
1 at PageID.2. Plaintiff claims she was disabled as a result of diabetes mellitus
type 2 and hypertension. Id. She also claims to experience impairing conditions
such as “peripheral neuropathy, obesity, high-density lipoprotein (HLD), carpal
tunnel syndrome, cataract, dermatitis, obstructive sleep apnea, and a left elbow
issue.” Id. Plaintiff’s DIB application was denied on February 23, 2023, and upon
reconsideration, Plaintiff’s application was again denied on March 1, 2023. Id. at
2-3.
On March 14, 2023, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on her
application. A telephonic hearing was held before the Administrative Law Judge
David Romeo (“ALJ”) on February 23, 2024. ECF No. 1; ECF No. 12-1 at
PageID.47. The ALJ denied Plaintiff’s application, and Plaintiff sought an
Appeals Council review of the ALJ’s decision. ECF No. 1 at PageID.3. Plaintiff’s
request for review was denied by the Appeals Council, and the Commissioner of
Case 1:25-cv-00040-DKW-RT Document 18 Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 9
PageID.<pageID>

3
Social Security (“Commissioner”) adopted the ALJ’s decision as its final decision.
Id.
On January 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed her Complaint for Review of Social
Security Disability Benefits Determination (“Complaint”). ECF No. 1. Plaintiff
commenced this case to seek review of the Commissioner’s determination to deny
her DIB application. Id. at 4. In her Complaint, Plaintiff sought a remand and a
new hearing, and ultimately the issuance of a new decision on her DIB application
and an award of her attorneys’ fees and costs. Id. On January 30, 2025, Mr.
Wicklund sought to represent Plaintiff as pro hac vice with attorney Danielle Rose
Beaver appearing as local counsel. ECF No. 3. On February 3, 2025, the Court
admitted Mr. Wicklund as pro hac vice counsel for Plaintiff. ECF No. 7.
On March 31, 2025, the parties entered into a Stipulation for Voluntary
Remand Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and to Entry of
Judgment (“Stipulation to Remand”). ECF No. 14. Pursuant to the Stipulation, on
April 1, 2025, judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff.
DISCUSSION
The Fee Motion was filed on June 23, 2025, and seeks attorneys’ fees and
costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. ECF No.
17. The Fee Motion requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $1,205.15 and
includes exhibits that show the timekeeping records for the fees sought. ECF Nos.
17-2 through 17-4. There was no opposition filed to the Fee Motion. The Court
Case 1:25-cv-00040-DKW-RT Document 18 Filed 01/30/26 Page 3 of 9
PageID.<pageID>

4
shall thus review the request to ensure that the fee amount is reasonable and is
permitted under 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
The Court notes that the Fee Motion did not request costs nor were there any
receipts for costs attached to the Fee Motion. The Court shall thus only evaluate
entitlement to the fee amount requested.
I. 	Plaintiff’s Entitlement to a Fee Award
Under the EAJA:
[A] court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees
and other expenses . . . incurred by that party in any civil action . . .
including proceedings for judicial review of agency action, brought by or
against the United States in any court having jurisdiction of that action,
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). In other words, a Plaintiff’s entitlement to a fee award
is determined by whether (1) Plaintiff is the prevailing party, and (2) the position
of the United States was not substantially justified or that special circumstances
make an award unjust. The fee request must also be reasonable. Hensley v.
Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983); Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d
1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2008). The burden is on the party seeking fees, in this case
the Plaintiff, to document work hours expended and submit evidence in support of
the hours requested. Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1397 (9th Cir. 1992).
Case 1:25-cv-00040-DKW-RT Document 18 Filed 01/30/26 Page 4 of 9
PageID.<pageID>

5
A. 	Plaintiff is the Prevailing Party
The Stipulation to Remand entered into by the parties sought the Court’s
approval to enter a final judgment in this case in favor of Plaintiff, reverse the final
decision of the Commissioner, and to remand this case for the issuance of a new
decision. ECF No. 14. The Court approved the Stipulation to Remand, and
judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff. ECF No. 15. Accordingly, Plaintiff is
the prevailing party in this case.
B. 	There are No Substantial Justification or Special
Circumstances
In order to award fees under the EAJA, the Court must find 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). The Commissioner has the burden of
establishing that the position taken by the United States was substantially justified,
which requires a showing that the United States’ conduct was based on “a
reasonable basis both in law and fact.” Flores v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 562, 569-570
(9th Cir. 1995) (citing Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988)). In the
instant case, there was no opposition to the Fee Motion. There is no evidence that
the position taken by the United States was substantially justified nor is there
evidence of special circumstances that would warrant a denial of the fee request.
Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to a fee award under 28 U.S.C. §
2412.
Case 1:25-cv-00040-DKW-RT Document 18 Filed 01/30/26 Page 5 of 9
PageID.<pageID>

6
C. 	The Hours Requested are Reasonable
Under the EAJA, fees for paralegal services are permitted. Richlin Sec.
Serv. Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 581 (2008). The Court shall thus review the
requested hours in the Fee Motion for both attorneys and paralegals. Plaintiff has
the burden of documenting and submitting evidence in support of the number of
hours requested. Gates, 987 F.2d at 1397. The burden then shifts to the
Commissioner, who can then challenge the accuracy and reasonableness of the
hours requested by submitting evidence in support of its opposition. Id. at 1397-
98. However, the Commissioner in this case has elected not to oppose the fee
request.
The Court has nevertheless reviewed the timekeeping entries and notes that
Mr. Wicklund has elected not to charge for many of the time entries for legal work
he performed in this case. After careful review of the timekeeping sheet, the Court
finds that the hours of work performed in this case (7.8 hours) are reasonable.
D. 	The Hourly Rates are Reasonable
The reasonable maximum hourly rate for attorneys in EAJA cases are set
forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A):
The amount of fees awarded . . . shall be based upon prevailing market rates
for the kind and quality of the services furnished, except that . . . attorney
fees shall not be awarded in excess of $125 per hour unless the court
determines that an increase in the cost of living or a special factor, such as
the limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings involved,
justifies a higher fee.
Case 1:25-cv-00040-DKW-RT Document 18 Filed 01/30/26 Page 6 of 9
PageID.<pageID>

7
Pursuant to Thangaraja v. Gonzales, the Ninth Circuit has set forth maximum
hourly rates, adjusted for the increase in the cost of living, for fees awarded under
the EAJA. Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870, 876-77 (9th Cir. 2005); United
States Courts for the Ninth Circuit, Statutory Maximum Rates Under the [EAJA]
https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/attorneys/statutory-maximum-rates/ (last visited
January 30, 2026). The work performed in this case was completed in 2025. ECF
No. 17-2. The Ninth Circuit has set forth a $258.46 maximum hourly rate for work
performed by attorneys in 2025. The Fee Motion requests an hourly rate of
$251.84 for work performed by attorneys, which is below the rate permitted.
Accordingly, the hourly rate of $251.84 is reasonable.
The Ninth Circuit has not set forth a maximum hourly rate for paralegals.
However, it is understood that paralegals are awarded an hourly rate based on the
prevailing market rate. Garrison v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 192, 194 (2008); United
Partition Sys., Inc. v. United States, 95 Fed. Cl. 42, 59 (2010). The Fee Motion
requests $100.00 per hour for work performed by paralegals. Based upon this
Court’s knowledge of the prevailing market rate in the applicable district, the
District of Hawaii, the Court agrees that $100.00 per hour is reasonable for
paralegal work. See, e.g., United Partition Sys., Inc., 95 Fed. Cl. at 60 (awarding
$105 per hour for paralegal work in the District of Columbia in 2010).
Accordingly, the Court finds the hourly rates requested for attorneys and paralegals
performing work in this case to be reasonable.
Case 1:25-cv-00040-DKW-RT Document 18 Filed 01/30/26 Page 7 of 9
PageID.<pageID>

8
E. 	The Attorneys’ Fees Requested are Reasonable
In the Ninth Circuit, the reasonableness of the fee amount requested is
determined by the using of the lodestar method. Costa v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.
Admin., 690 F.3d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 2012). The same method is used to
determine the reasonableness of fees under the EAJA. Id. The lodestar amount is
calculated by multiplying the number of hours (7.8 hours) by the reasonable hourly
rate ($251.84 for attorneys; $100.00 for paralegals). See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461
U.S. 424, 433 (1983). In this case, the Court has found the number of hours and
hourly rate requested reasonable. The Court thus finds that under the lodestar
method, the total amount of attorneys’ fees requested by Plaintiff ($1,205.15) is
reasonable.
CONCLUSION
The Court FINDS that Plaintiff is entitled to her attorneys’ fees under the
EAJA, and RECOMMENDS that the district court award Plaintiff fees in the
amount of $1,205.15.
The Court notes that if Plaintiff is awarded attorney fees in the future under
42 U.S.C. § 406(b), counsel is required to refund the Plaintiff the amount of the
smaller fee between those awarded under the 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (EAJA) and 42
U.S.C. § 406(b). Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002).
Case 1:25-cv-00040-DKW-RT Document 18 Filed 01/30/26 Page 8 of 9
PageID.<pageID>

9
IT IS SO FOUND AND RECOMMENDED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, January 30, 2026.
Civ. No. 25-00040 DKW-RT; Siua Tuiena Patu vs. Commissioner of Social
Security, Leland Dudek, Acting Commissioner of Social Security; Findings and
Recommendation to Grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to the
Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412
Rom A. Trader
United States Magistrate Judge
Andrade
Case 1:25-cv-00040-DKW-RT Document 18 Filed 01/30/26 Page 9 of 9
PageID.<pageID>