ORDER

THOMAS B. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Vacate EAJA Fee Judgment (Doc. 24).

On February 8, 2012, counsel for plaintiff filed Plaintiff's EAJA Petition for Attorney Fees (Doc. 22). In the motion, counsel for plaintiff represented that "[c]ounsel for Plaintiff has contacted the Defendant's attorney pursuant to this Local Rule.1 The Defendant does not oppose this EAJA Petition." Based upon this representation, the Court entered its Order (Doc. 23), granting plaintiff's motion and awarded plaintiff $4,585.72 in attorneys' fees. Now, plaintiff's counsel has informed the Court that in fact, the defendant was not afforded sufficient time to review and consider the plaintiff's motion and the Order awarding fees should be vacated. The Court construes this admission to mean counsel's representation that the motion for EAJA attorneys' fees was unopposed was not true.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) authorizes the Court to relieve a party from a final judgment or order on grounds which include "mistake," "misconduct by an opposing party," or "any other reason that justifies relief." The motion must "be made within a reasonable time." Upon due consideration, the Court finds there are good grounds for the motion and that it was timely filed. Therefore, the motion is GRANTED and this Court's Order (Doc. 23) is hereby vacated and deemed void ab initio.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DONE AND ORDERED.