Gonzales v. Colvin

Filing 21

ORDER on 20 Motion for Attorney Fees. Defendant will pay Plaintiff a total of $3,155.47 in EAJA fees, by Judge John L. Kane on 10/14/2015. (athom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge John L. Kane
Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00040-JLK-AP

GABRIEL V. GONZALES,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________
Kane, J.
Upon consideration of the Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees
Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 et seq., (Doc. 20) IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED:
1.

Defendant will pay Plaintiff a total of $3,155.47 in EAJA fees. This amount is

payable to Plaintiff, not directly to his counsel. Payment will be sent to the office of Plaintiff’s
attorney of record: Michael W. Seckar, Esq.; Michael W. Seckar, P.C., 402 West 12th Street,
Pueblo, CO 81003.
2.

If, after receiving the Court’s EAJA fee order, the Commissioner determines that

Plaintiff 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 (31 U.S.C.
§ 3727(b)), and the EAJA fees will be made payable to Plaintiff’s attorney of record, Michael W.

1

Seckar, Esq. 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 of record, Michael W. Seckar, Esq.
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 counsels’

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.
5.

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 14th day of October, 2015.

BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
Judge John L. Kane
Senior United States District Court Judge

2