Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Bland v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, CV-18-00436-PHX-DJH. (2019)

Court: District Court, D. Arizona Number: infdco20190426871 Visitors: 9
Filed: Apr. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 25, 2019
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION ORDER DIANE J. HUMETEWA , District Judge . Pending before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA") (Doc. 17). Plaintiff is seeking $6,511.68 in attorneys' fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2412(d). The parties stipulate the requested award "represents reasonable compensation for all legal services rendered on behalf of Plaintiff's attorney in connection with this civil action before the district
More

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA") (Doc. 17). Plaintiff is seeking $6,511.68 in attorneys' fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2412(d). The parties stipulate the requested award "represents reasonable compensation for all legal services rendered on behalf of Plaintiff's attorney in connection with this civil action before the district court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 2412(d)." (Id. at 1-2).

In any action brought by or against the United States except one sounding in tort, the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, provides that "a court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other expenses . . . unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified." 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); Tobeler v. Colvin, 749 F.3d 830, 832 (9th Cir. 2014). Under the EAJA, "attorneys' fees are to be awarded to a party winning a . . . remand unless the Commissioner shows that his position with respect to the issue on which the district court based its remand was "substantially justified." Lewis v. Barnhart, 281 F.3d 1081, 1083 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Flores v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 562, 568-69 (9th Cir. 1995)). Under Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 595-98 (2010), EAJA fees awarded by the Court belong to Plaintiff and are subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program (31 U.S.C. § 3716(c)(3)(B)).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties' Joint Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. 17) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded $6,511.68 in attorneys' fees. Any check for EAJA fees shall be mailed to Plaintiff's counsel, Stephanie Lake, Esq.; Law Offices of Stephanie Lake, P.C.; 3737 North Seventh Street, Suite 100 Phoenix, Arizona 85014.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if, after receiving this Court's EAJA fee order, the Commissioner determines upon effectuation of the Court's EAJA fee order that (1) Plaintiff does not owe a debt that is subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program, and (2) agrees to waive the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3727(b), the fees will be made payable to Plaintiff's attorney. However, if there is a debt owed under the Treasury Offset Program, the remaining EAJA fees after offset will be paid by check made out to Plaintiff but delivered to Plaintiff's attorney.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer