Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Smith v. Berryhill, 1:17-cv-01316-RBH. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. South Carolina Number: infdco20180322g69 Visitors: 6
Filed: Mar. 21, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 21, 2018
Summary: ORDER R. BRYAN HARWELL , District Judge . On March 1, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking $2,039.06 in attorney's fees and $22.04 in expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 1 asserting the position taken by Defendant in this action was not substantially justified. See ECF No. 17. On March 15, 2018, Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff's motion stating she does not oppose payment of the requested amount of attorney's fees and expenses. See ECF No. 19. After careful
More

ORDER

On March 1, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking $2,039.06 in attorney's fees and $22.04 in expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act,1 asserting the position taken by Defendant in this action was not substantially justified. See ECF No. 17. On March 15, 2018, Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff's motion stating she does not oppose payment of the requested amount of attorney's fees and expenses. See ECF No. 19.

After careful consideration, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion [ECF No. 17] and ORDERS Defendant to pay attorney's fees in the amount of $2,039.06, subject to the Treasury Offset Program2 if Plaintiff owes an outstanding debt to the federal government, and expenses in the amount of $22.04. Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), the attorney's fees shall be paid directly to Plaintiff and mailed to her attorney, with a copy sent to Plaintiff. IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).
2. 31 U.S.C. § 3716.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer