VIRDEN v. ASTRUE, 11-CV-0189-DRH. (2012)
Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20120119d71
Visitors: 14
Filed: Jan. 18, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 18, 2012
Summary: ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON, Chief District Judge. Pending before the Court is plaintiff's December 13, 2011 motion for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. 32). Specifically, plaintiff moves the Court to grant fees and costs in the amount of $9,055.30. As of this date, defendant has not responded to the motion. 1 Thus, the Court considers the failure to respond as an admission of the merits of the motion. Thus, the Court GRANTS the motion. The Court AWARDS plaintiff fees
Summary: ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON, Chief District Judge. Pending before the Court is plaintiff's December 13, 2011 motion for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. 32). Specifically, plaintiff moves the Court to grant fees and costs in the amount of $9,055.30. As of this date, defendant has not responded to the motion. 1 Thus, the Court considers the failure to respond as an admission of the merits of the motion. Thus, the Court GRANTS the motion. The Court AWARDS plaintiff fees ..
More
ORDER
DAVID R. HERNDON, Chief District Judge.
Pending before the Court is plaintiff's December 13, 2011 motion for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. 32). Specifically, plaintiff moves the Court to grant fees and costs in the amount of $9,055.30. As of this date, defendant has not responded to the motion.1 Thus, the Court considers the failure to respond as an admission of the merits of the motion. Thus, the Court GRANTS the motion. The Court AWARDS plaintiff fees in the amount of $9,055.30 in fees and costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. "Failure to file a timely response to a motion may, in the Court's discretion, be considered an admission of the merits of the motion." Local Rule 7.1(c)(1).
Source: Leagle
