Hatch v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
33
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 29 First MOTION for Attorney Fees Pursuant to EAJA by Plaintiff Christina Hatch. Signed by Judge William C Lee on 7/29/2014. (lhc) Modified on 7/30/2014 to correct title (lhc).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
CHRISTINA HATCH, on behalf of
CRISTIAN HATCH,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL NO. 1:13cv119
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on a motion for fees, filed by the plaintiff, Christina Hatch
(“Hatch”), on May 29, 2014. The Commissioner filed her response on June 11, 2014. Hatch has
declined to file a reply.
Discussion
Hatch has filed a motion for award of attorney’s fees, in the amount of $4,918.10,
pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. To award attorney fees
pursuant to the EAJA, the court must find that the claimant was the prevailing party, that the
claimant had a net worth not exceeding two million dollars ($2,000,000) at the time the action
was filed, and that the position of the United States in the litigation or the action (or failure to
act) of the agency on which the civil action is based was not substantially justified and that there
are no special circumstances which make an award under the EAJA unjust. Additionally the
application for fees must be made within thirty days of the final judgment, defined as the date a
judgment is not appealable, which is ninety days from the date of entry of judgment in most
circumstances.
In the present case the Commissioner does not object to the award requested. However,
the Commissioner notes that any fees paid can be offset to satisfy any preexisting debt that Hatch
owes to the United States in accordance with Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010). The
Commissioner acknowledges that Hatch’s counsel has provided a valid assignment of fees and,
thus, if the Commissioner verifies that Hatch does not owe pre-existing debt to offset, the
Commissioner agrees to direct payment of the award to Hatch’s attorney pursuant to the EAJA
assignment. Hatch has not objected to this arrangement.
Accordingly, as it is undisputed that Hatch meets the criteria for an award of fees, the
EAJA fee request will be granted.
Conclusion
On the basis of the foregoing, Hatch’s motion for fees [29] is hereby GRANTED.
Entered: July 29, 2014.
s/ William C. Lee
William C. Lee, 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?