Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security, 2:16-CV-0101-DMC. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20181220947
Visitors: 8
Filed: Dec. 19, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 19, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENNIS M. COTA , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brought this action for judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Final judgment was entered on May 2, 2018, remanding this matter for further proceedings. Pending before the court is plaintiff's unopposed motion for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) (Doc. 38). 1 Given the lack of any opposition from the Commiss
Summary: ORDER DENNIS M. COTA , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brought this action for judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Final judgment was entered on May 2, 2018, remanding this matter for further proceedings. Pending before the court is plaintiff's unopposed motion for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) (Doc. 38). 1 Given the lack of any opposition from the Commissi..
More
ORDER
DENNIS M. COTA, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brought this action for judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Final judgment was entered on May 2, 2018, remanding this matter for further proceedings. Pending before the court is plaintiff's unopposed motion for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) (Doc. 38).1
Given the lack of any opposition from the Commissioner, the reasonableness of the fees sought, and good cause appearing therefor, plaintiff's motion is granted. Plaintiff is awarded EAJA attorney's fees in the amount of $11,228.81, payable directly to plaintiff by the Commissioner within 65 days of the date of this order. See Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Defendant was provided two extensions of time to file an opposition to plaintiff's motion, the most recent extension to September 28, 2018. To date, no opposition has been filed.
Source: Leagle
