Lopez v. Astrue

Filing 30

BRIEFING ORDER. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 6/24/10. (pjhlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CONSTANCIA N. LOPEZ, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant. _______________________________/ On August 12, 2008, the court granted in part and denied in part both Lopez's and the Commissioner's respective motions for summary judgment, and remanded the matter for limited further proceedings before the administrative law judge ("ALJ"). Subsequently, on May 15, 2009, the court denied plaintiff's counsel's request for fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"). On June 17, 2010, plaintiff's counsel filed a motion for attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 406(b)(1)(A). As recognized by the Supreme Court, the Commissioner has no direct financial stake in 406(b) requests but instead "plays a part in the fee determination resembling that of a trustee for the claimants." See Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 798, fn. 6. (2002). Defendant is ORDERED to file an opposition, if any, to plaintiff's motion twenty-one days from the date of this order. Plaintiff's reply, if any, is due no later than fourteen days after defendant files his opposition. The court will decide the motion on the papers. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 24, 2010 _______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge No. C 07-2649 PJH BRIEFING ORDER United United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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?