Rentz v. Colvin

Filing 24

ORDER finding and denies as moot 21 Motion for Attorney Fees; granting 23 Joint Motion for Attorney Fees and awards attorney's fees in the amount of $5,534.87 and expenses in the amount of $16.62. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 10/25/2017. (jlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DUBLIN DIVISION
SANDRA KAY RENTZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_________

CV 316-037

ORDER
_________
On August 1, 2017, United States District Judge Dudley H. Bowen, Jr., granted a
reversal and remand pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) in the above-captioned
social security appeal, and a judgment was entered in Plaintiff’s favor. (Doc. nos. 19, 20.)
On October 19, 2017, Plaintiff moved for $5,594.87 in attorney’s fees and $16.62 in
expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). (Doc. no. 21.) However, after
settlement discussions, the parties jointly moved for an award of $5,534.87 in attorney’s fees
and $16.62 in expenses under the EAJA. (Doc. no. 23.)
In Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 589 (2010), the Supreme Court held, based on the
“plain text” of 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), that an EAJA award “is payable to the litigant and is
therefore subject to a Government offset to satisfy a pre-existing debt that the litigant owes
the United States.” Based on Ratliff, the proper course is to “award the EAJA fees directly
to Plaintiff as the prevailing party and remain silent regarding the direction of payment of

those fees.” Bostic v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 858 F. Supp. 2d 1301, 1306 (M.D. Fla. 2011).
Indeed, this approach has been followed in this District. See Shank v. Berryhill, CV 116030, doc. no. 20 (S.D. Ga. May 24, 2017) (awarding EAJA fees to plaintiff without directing
payment to counsel despite plaintiff’s assignment of award to counsel); Brown v. Astrue, CV
411-152, doc. no. 24 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 4, 2013) (same); Scott v. Colvin, CV 313-004, doc. no.
26 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 11, 2013) (same).
In accord with this practice, the Court awards the EAJA fees to Plaintiff, subject to
offset by any debt owed by Plaintiff to the United States. The Court leaves it “to the
discretion of the government to accept Plaintiff’s assignment of EAJA Fees and pay fees
directly to Plaintiff[’s] counsel after a determination that Plaintiff does not owe a federal
debt.” Bostic, 858 F. Supp. 2d at 1306; see also Robinson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 8:13CV-2073-T-23TGW, 2015 WL 176027, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 13, 2015) (allowing EAJA fees
“to be paid by virtue of a fee assignment, to plaintiff’s counsel by the defendant if the
plaintiff does not owe a debt to the United States Department of the Treasury”); Griffin v.
Astrue, 1:10cv115, 2010 WL 5211548, at *3 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 16, 2010) (“There is nothing in
Ratliff to indicate that it is intended to divest the government of its discretion to enter into
direct payment arrangements where there is no debt to the government or where funds
remain after satisfaction of such debt.”).

The Court therefore DENIES AS MOOT

Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees (doc. no. 21), GRANTS the parties’ joint motion for an
award of attorney’s fees (doc. no. 23), and AWARDS attorney’s fees in the amount of

2

$5,534.87, and expenses in the amount of $16.62.
SO ORDERED this 25th day of October, 2017, at Augusta, Georgia.

3