Bulger v. Colvin (CONSENT)

Filing 24

ORDERED as follows: 1) That the court's 22 order be and is hereby VACATED; 2) The dft's 23 motion to amend the award of attorney's fees be and is hereby GRANTED; 3) That the 19 motion for attorney's fees be and is hereby GRA NTED to the extent that the plf be and is hereby AWARDED attorney's fees in the amount of $2,793.81 and expenses in the amount of $8.17 for a total award of $2,801.98; 4) To the extent that plf's counsel requests that fees sh ould be awarded to directly to counsel, 28 USC § 2412(d)(1)(A) authorizes the court to award fees to the prevailing party, as further set out in order; The motion that fees be paid directly to counsel be and is hereby DENIED. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 12/8/2014. (wcl, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION TIMOTHY RACINE BULGER, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13cv127-CSC (WO) ORDER Now pending before the court is the defendant’s amended response to the plaintiff’s motion for an award of attorney’s fees which the court construes as a motion to amend the award of fees.1 (Doc. # 23). On December 5, 2014, the defendant filed a response in which she stated that she agreed to pay fees in the amount of $2,703.81. However, that amount was incorrect. In fact, the parties agreed that the defendant would pay to the plaintiff $2,793.81 in attorney’s fees and $8.17 in expenses for a total award of $2,801.98. See Doc. # 23. Accordingly, upon consideration of the motion to amend, and for good cause, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. That the court’s order dated December 5, 2014 (doc. # 22) be and is hereby VACATED. 1 The court notes that a motion as opposed to an amended response is the appropriate vehicle to correct the defendant’s error. 2. The defendant’s motion to amend the award of attorney’s fees (doc. # 23) be and is hereby GRANTED. 3. That the motion for attorney’s fees (doc. # 19) be and is hereby GRANTED to the extent that the plaintiff be and is hereby AWARDED attorney’s fees in the amount of $2,793.81 and expenses in the amount of $8.17 for a total award of $2,801.98. 4. To the extent that plaintiff’s counsel requests that fees should be awarded to directly to counsel, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) authorizes the court to award fees to the prevailing party.2 See 28 U.S.C. § (d)(2)(B). See also Astrue v. Ratliff, — S.Ct. —, 2010 WL 2346547 (2010). The motion that fees be paid directly to counsel be and is hereby DENIED. Done this 8th day of December, 2014. /s/Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2 On May 5, 2008, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided Reeves v. Astrue, 526 F.3d 732 (11th Cir. 2008) in which the Court unambiguously held that “attorney's fees are awarded to the prevailing party, not to the prevailing party's attorney.” Id. at 738. On June 14, 2010, the United States Supreme Court decided Astrue v. Ratliff, — S.Ct. —, 2010 WL 2346547 (2010) in which the Court unambiguously held that attorney’s fees are awarded to the prevailing litigant, not to prevailing litigant’s attorney. See also Reeves v. Astrue, 526 F.3d 732, 738 (11th Cir. 2008) (“attorney’s fees are awarded to the prevailing party, not to the prevailing party’s attorney.”).

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?