AMARO v. COLVIN, CV-12-213-PHX-FJM. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20151203a23
Visitors: 15
Filed: Dec. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 02, 2015
Summary: ORDER FREDERICK J. MARTONE , Senior District Judge . The court has before it plaintiff's Motion for an award of attorney's fees (doc. 29), the government's Response (doc. 30), and plaintiff's Reply (doc. 33). Plaintiff is entitled to fees only if the government's position was not substantially justified. I have reviewed my Order of October 23, 2012 (doc. 18) and the panel's Memorandum disposition of June 3, 2015 (doc. 26). Respectfully, I am not persuaded that the panel's conclusions are m
Summary: ORDER FREDERICK J. MARTONE , Senior District Judge . The court has before it plaintiff's Motion for an award of attorney's fees (doc. 29), the government's Response (doc. 30), and plaintiff's Reply (doc. 33). Plaintiff is entitled to fees only if the government's position was not substantially justified. I have reviewed my Order of October 23, 2012 (doc. 18) and the panel's Memorandum disposition of June 3, 2015 (doc. 26). Respectfully, I am not persuaded that the panel's conclusions are mo..
More
ORDER
FREDERICK J. MARTONE, Senior District Judge.
The court has before it plaintiff's Motion for an award of attorney's fees (doc. 29), the government's Response (doc. 30), and plaintiff's Reply (doc. 33).
Plaintiff is entitled to fees only if the government's position was not substantially justified. I have reviewed my Order of October 23, 2012 (doc. 18) and the panel's Memorandum disposition of June 3, 2015 (doc. 26). Respectfully, I am not persuaded that the panel's conclusions are more reasonable than my own. There is a responsible difference of opinion here. This is not uncommon in social security cases in this circuit.
Being the prevailing party on appeal is not sufficient to warrant a fee award. Plaintiff must show that the government's position was not substantially justified. Here, I am of the view that the government's position was more than substantially justified.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED DENYING the plaintiff's Motion for an award of attorney's fees. (Doc. 29).
Source: Leagle
