Sanchez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 29

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 2/9/2016 ORDERING The court's 2/5/2016 order awarding plaintiff's attorneys' fees pursuant to 42:406(b) is VACATED insofar as it directs plaintiff's counsel to promptly pay to plaintiff the sum of $6,425.54 that was previously awarded to plaintiff's counsel in this action pursuant to the EAJA. All other aspects of court's 2/5/2016 order, including the award of $10,420.72 in attorneys' fees to plaintiff's counsel pursuant to 42:406(b), remain in full effect. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANNIE SANCHEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-0786-KJN

v.

ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,

16

Defendant.

17
On February 5, 2016, the undersigned issued an order granting plaintiff’s December 19,

18
19

2016 motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (EFC No. 25), awarding

20

plaintiff’s counsel $10,420.72 in attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), directing

21

plaintiff’s counsel to promptly pay to plaintiff the sum of $6,425.54 that was previously awarded

22

in this action pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), and directing the Clerk of

23

Court to close this case. (ECF No. 28.) That order incorrectly directed plaintiff’s counsel to

24

promptly pay to plaintiff the sum of $6,425.54 that was previously awarded to plaintiff’s counsel

25

in this action pursuant to the EAJA (ECF No. 24) based on an erroneous understanding that the

26

////

27

////

28

////
1

1

total of $10,420.72 in attorneys’ fees requested through plaintiff’s motion included fees already

2

awarded under the EAJA and that plaintiff had not assigned the EAJA award to her counsel.1

3

Accordingly, the February 5, 2016 order is vacated insofar as it directs plaintiff’s counsel to

4

promptly pay to plaintiff the sum of $6,425.54 that was previously awarded to plaintiff’s counsel

5

in this action pursuant to the EAJA. All other aspects of that order, however, remain in full

6

effect.2

7

For the reasons stated above, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1. The court’s February 5, 2016 order awarding plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42

9

U.S.C. § 406(b) (ECF No. 28) is vacated insofar as it directs plaintiff’s counsel to

10

promptly pay to plaintiff the sum of $6,425.54 that was previously awarded to

11

plaintiff’s counsel in this action pursuant to the EAJA.
2. All other aspects of court’s February 5, 2016 order, including the award of $10,420.72

12
13

in attorneys’ fees to plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), remain in full

14

effect.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 9, 2016

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

On February 5, 2016, plaintiff’s counsel contacted the court via telephone to clarify that the
$10,420.72 in attorneys’ fees sought through plaintiff’s motion was based on a deduction of the
EAJA fees already awarded from the total sum of attorneys’ fees accrued. Further review of
plaintiff’s motion demonstrates that plaintiff’s request for $10,420.72 in attorneys’ fees did
contemplate an offset of the previously-awarded EAJA fees from the sum total of attorneys’ fees
accrued over the course of this litigation. (See ECF No. 25 at 1.)
2

The court’s analysis in its February 5, 2016 order with regard to the reasonableness of the
$10,420.72 in attorneys’ fees awarded is not impacted by the present order.
2