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, )
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?