ORDER: granting in the amount of $6,919.50, provided that plaintiff's counsel surrenders the $2,328.21 she previously received under the EAJA to plaintiff 15 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 6/23/2011. (Rodko, B.)
ELECTRONIC ENDORSEMENT ON DKT. #15 IN MARTINEZ V. ASTRUE, 09 CV 1267 (JBA)
6/23/11 – On November 9, 2009, defendant filed a Motion for Entry of Judgment Under
Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and Voluntary Remand of the Matter to the
Commissioner of Social Security (Dkt. #8), which motion was granted three days later.
(Dkt. #9; see also Dkts. ##10-11). Shortly thereafter, on December 15, 2009, the
parties filed a Stipulation for Allowance of Fees and Costs Under the Equal Access to
Justice Act (Dkt. #12), in the amount of $2,328.21 in attorney’s fees and $350 in costs,
to be paid directly to plaintiff’s counsel under the EAJA. This Stipulation was “SO
ORDERED” that next day. (Dkt. #13).
On June 2, 2011, plaintiff filed the pending Motion for Authorization of Attorney’s Fees
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (Dkt. #15), in which she seeks $6,919.50, which is
twenty-five percent of the past due Social Security disability benefits paid on plaintiff’s
account. In his Response, filed six days later (Dkt. #16), defendant indicates that he has
no objection to an award of $6,919.50 to plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
406(b), as long as she surrenders the $2,328.21 she received under the EAJA to plaintiff.
(At 3-4, citing Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002)(a fee award may be made
pursuant to both § 406 and EAJA as long as plaintiff’s counsel surrenders the smaller of
the two awards to plaintiff)).
Accordingly, plaintiff’s Motion for Authorization of Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
406(b) (Dkt. #15), is granted in the amount of $6,919.50, provided that plaintiff’s counsel
surrenders the $2,328.21 she previously received under the EAJA to plaintiff.
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?