Rivera v. Colvin
Filing
23
ORDER re: 22 Stipulation, by Judge John L. Kane on 12/02/2014. (athom, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Honorable John L. Kane
Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-00681-AP
TARA R. RIVERA,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
Upon consideration of the parties’ joint stipulation for fees pursuant to the Equal Access
to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412 et seq., IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.
Defendant will pay Plaintiff a total of $3,948.52 in EAJA fees. This amount is
payable to Plaintiff, not directly to his counsel.1 Payment will be sent to the office of Plaintiff’s
attorney: Michael W. Seckar; 402 W. 12th Street; Pueblo, CO 81003.
2.
Defendant’s payment of this amount bars any and all claims Plaintiff may have
relating to EAJA fees and expenses in connection with this action.
1
However, if, after receiving the Court’s EAJA fee order, the Commissioner determines
that Plaintiff (1) has assigned her right to EAJA fees to her attorney, and (2) does not owe a debt
that is subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program, then the Commissioner will agree to
waive the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act, and the EAJA fees will be made payable to
Plaintiff’s attorney. However, if there is a debt owed under the Treasury Offset Program, the
Commissioner cannot agree to waive the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act, and the
remaining EAJA fees after offset will be paid by a check made out to Plaintiff but delivered to
Plaintiff’s attorney.
3.
Defendant’s payment of this amount is without prejudice to Plaintiff’s counsel’s
right to seek attorney fees under section 206(b) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b),
subject to the offset provisions of the EAJA.
4.
This Order will not be used as precedent in any future cases, and should not be
construed as a concession that the Commissioner’s administrative decision denying benefits to
Plaintiff was not substantially justified.
DATED this 2nd day of December, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/John L. Kane
John L. Kane, Senior Judge
United States District Court
2
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?