Marr v. Colvin et al
ORDER approving 22 Stipulation Re: Plaintiffs Application for an Award of Attorney's Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 11/25/2014.(alowe)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 13-CV-01216-REB
KENDALL B. MARR,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
The matter is before the court on the Stipulation Re: Plaintiffs Application For
an Award of Attorney’s Fees Under The Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. §
2412 [#22]1 filed November 25, 2014. After reviewing the stipulation and the record, I
conclude that the stipulation should be approved and that plaintiff should be awarded
$4,008.07 in attorney fees pursuant to the EAJA.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Stipulation Re: Plaintiffs Application For an Award of Attorney’s
Fees Under The Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 [#22] filed November
25, 2014, is APPROVED;
2. That pursuant to the EAJA, plaintiff is awarded attorney fees of $4,008.07;
3. That payment of attorney fees SHALL constitute a complete release from
“[#22]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific
paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention
throughout this order.
and bar to any and all claims plaintiff may have relating to EAJA fees related to this
4. That this award SHALL not be used as precedent in any future cases, nor be
construed as a concession by the Commissioner that the original administrative
decision denying benefits to plaintiff or the Commissioner’s litigation position was not
5. That the EAJA award is without prejudice to plaintiff’s attorney’s right to seek
attorney fees pursuant to Social Security Act § 206(b), 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to
the offset provisions of the EAJA, see 28 U.S.C. § 2412(c)(1)(2006);
6. That after receiving the court’s EAJA fee order, the Commissioner (1)
determines upon effectuation of the court’s EAJA fee order that plaintiff does not owe a
debt that is subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program, and (2) agrees to waive
the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act, the fees will be made payable to plaintiff’s
7. That if there is a debt owned under the Treasury Offset Program, the
Commissioner cannot agree to waive the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act; and
8. That the remaining EAJA fees after offset will be paid by a check made out to
plaintiff but delivered to plaintiff’s attorney.
Dated November 25, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
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?