Lor v. SSA

Filing 26

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 5/29/19 DENYING plaintiff's counsel's request (ECF No. 24 ) for relief from the requirements of Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010), regarding payment of fees directly to counsel instead of the client. Pursuant to Astrue, and as stated in the court's 3/6/19, order, fees are payable directly to the client, not counsel. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHEU LOR,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:15-CV-0548-DMC

v.

ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brings this action for judicial

18
19

review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

20

Pending before the court is defendant’s motion to clarify the court’s March 6, 2019, order

21

regarding an award of fees to plaintiff’s attorney under the Equal Access to Justice Act (ECF No.

22

25). Specifically, defendant seeks clarification of the 65-day deadline to pay fees awarded by the

23

court. Good cause appearing therefor, defendant’s motion is granted. The court clarifies the

24

March 6, 2019, order to reflect that initiation of the payment process within the specified deadline

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
1

1
2

constitutes sufficient compliance.
Also before the court is plaintiff’s counsel’s request (ECF No. 24) for relief from

3

the requirements of Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010), regarding payment of fees directly to

4

counsel instead of the client. This request is denied. Pursuant to Astrue, and as stated in the

5

court’s March 6, 2019, order, fees are payable directly to the client, not counsel.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9

Dated: May 29, 2019
____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2