Quintana v. Colvin et al
ORDER granting in part 23 Motion for Attorney Fees. Defendant will pay Plaintiff a total of $7,362.50 in EAJA fees as indicated in the attached Order. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 10/01/2015. (athom, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 14-cv-3286-CMA
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES UNDER
THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Keith Quintana’s Motion for Attorney
Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). (Doc. # 23.) Upon consideration
of the Motion and the Defendant’s Response, which does not oppose the attorney fee
request, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED in part, and the
Court ORDERS as follows:
1. Plaintiff was the “prevailing party” in this action for purposes of the EAJA; 1
2. Defendant will pay Plaintiff 2 a total of $7,362.50 in EAJA fees. In the instant
matter, Plaintiff assigned his right to EAJA fees to his attorney (Doc. # 23-4);
Under the EAJA, a party that prevails against the United States in court, including a successful
Social Security benefits claimant, may be awarded fees if the position of the United States was
not “substantially justified” and there are no special circumstances that make an award of fees
unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002). As ample
case law indicates, where, as here, a Social Security disability claimant obtains a remand to the
Commissioner under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), he is a prevailing party for purposes of the EAJA. See
Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 302 (1993).
thus, after receiving the Court’s Order, if the Commissioner (1) determines that
Plaintiff does not 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 EAJA fees will be made payable to Plaintiff’s attorney. However, if there
is a debt owed under the Treasury Offset Program, the Commissioner will pay
the remaining EAJA fees after offset by a check made out to Plaintiff but
delivered to Plaintiff’s attorney.
3. 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.
4. Defendant’s payment of this amount is without prejudice to Plaintiff’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.
DATED: October 1, 2015
BY THE COURT:
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge
“The clear language of the [EAJA] provides that attorney’s fees are paid to the prevailing party,
not the attorney.” Manning v. Astrue, 510 F.3d 1246, 1254 (10th Cir. 2007); see also Astrue v.
Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 594 (2010).
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?