Valdez v. Berryhill, CV 18-444 CG. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. New Mexico
Number: infdco20190215b65
Visitors: 21
Filed: Feb. 14, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 14, 2019
Summary: ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d) CARMEN E. GARZA , Chief Magistrate Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, (Doc. 19), filed February 12, 2019, in which the parties agree to an award of $5,748.60 in attorney fees. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff be awarded $5,748.60 in attorney fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Ac
Summary: ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d) CARMEN E. GARZA , Chief Magistrate Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, (Doc. 19), filed February 12, 2019, in which the parties agree to an award of $5,748.60 in attorney fees. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff be awarded $5,748.60 in attorney fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act..
More
ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)
CARMEN E. GARZA, Chief Magistrate Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, (Doc. 19), filed February 12, 2019, in which the parties agree to an award of $5,748.60 in attorney fees.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff be awarded $5,748.60 in attorney fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). See Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 591-93 (2010) (providing EAJA fees are paid to the prevailing party, not the attorney).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff's counsel receives attorney fees under both the EAJA and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), Section 206(b) of the Social Security Act, Plaintiff's counsel shall refund the smaller award to Plaintiff pursuant to Weakley v. Bowen, 803 F.2d 575, 580 (10th Cir. 1986).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
