Smith v. Astrue

Filing 34

ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 32 Motion to Alter Judgment (pjhlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

CLIFFORD O. SMITH II,
Plaintiff,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER
OR AMEND JUDGMENT

v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of
Social Security
Defendant.

14
15

No. C 10-4814 PJH

/

Plaintiff Clifford O. Smith (“Smith”) moves for reconsideration of this court’s July 31,
2012 order granting in part and denying in part his request for an award of attorney’s fees
and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), for
the time that his attorney, Harvey P. Sackett (“Sackett”), expended on appeal before this
court of the Commissioner’s final decision denying plaintiff’s disability insurance benefits
(“DIB”) and supplemental security income (“SSI”) benefits under Titles II and XVI of the
Social Security Act. In that order, the court awarded Smith’s attorney, Sackett, all of the
attorney’s fees that he requested in the amount of $7,084.31, but denied his request for
direct payment of the fees based on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Astrue
v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 2524 (2010).
Smith now argues that the attorney’s fees order is based on a manifest error of law
or of fact. Smith mistakenly claims that the court previously overlooked his brief filed in
support of his original motion for attorney’s fees, and makes the same arguments in his
current motion that he did in support of the prior motion for attorney’s fees. The court,

1
2

however, did not overlook Smith’s brief.
Smith suggests that Sackett is entitled to direct payment simply because the

3

Commissioner does not object to such an arrangement. However, for the reasons stated in

4

the court’s July 31, 2012 order, the court concludes that the Supreme Court has held

5

otherwise. Smith cannot obtain the relief he desires - direct payment of the fees to his

6

attorney Sackett - simply by pointing to the absence of any objection or even by stipulating

7

to an arrangement that is contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision. The court continues to

8

interpret the Court’s decision in Ratliff to require direct payment of the EAJA award to Smith

9

- and not to his attorney. 130 S.Ct. at 2527-28; see also United States v. $186,416.00 in

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

U.S. Currency, 642 F.3d 753, 755 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. at 2525-29).
For these reasons, Smith’s motion to alter or amend judgment is DENIED.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: September 19, 2012

16
Phyllis J. Hamilton
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2