Wickstrom v. O'Malley
Filing
25
ORDER denying as moot Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees - Application for an Award of Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act 18 ; approving the parties' Joint Stipulation for EAJA Fees 23 . See Order for details. (Written Opinion) Signed by Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster on 10/23/2024. (MEH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Bridie W. 1
Case No. 24-cv-1582 (DJF)
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
Martin O’Malley,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees–Application for
an Award of Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“Motion”) (ECF No. 18) and the parties’
Joint Stipulation for EAJA Fees (“Stipulation”) (ECF No. 23). Plaintiff filed her Motion on
October 16, 2024 (ECF No. 18), but did not file a meet and confer statement as required by Local
Rule 7.1(a). On October 22, 2024, the Court Ordered Plaintiff to meet and confer with Defendant
regarding her Motion, and to file a statement indicating whether Defendant objected to it by
October 29, 2024. (ECF No. 22.) Later on October 22, 2024, the parties filed their Stipulation
(ECF No. 23). The Court therefore infers the parties met and conferred regarding Plaintiff’s
Motion, finds that the Stipulation satisfies Plaintiff’s duty to file a meet and confer statement, and
denies Plaintiff’s Motion as moot.
The parties stipulate that the Court shall award $7,500 in attorney’s fees and costs to
Plaintiff under Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) (“EAJA”) (ECF No. 23
at 1). Based on the parties’ agreement, the Court approves the Stipulation. The Government shall
pay Plaintiff $7,500 in attorney fees and costs. In accordance with Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586
1
This District has adopted a policy of using only the first name and last initial of any
nongovernmental parties in orders in Social Security matters.
(2010), the EAJA fees may be subject to offset to satisfy any preexisting debt Plaintiff may owe
the United States.
If, after receiving the Court’s EAJA fee order, the Commissioner:
(1) determines Plaintiff 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, then the EAJA
fees will be made payable to Plaintiff’s attorney, Stephanie Christel. 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 check made out to Plaintiff.
Any checks issued for payment (regardless of whether the check is made out to Plaintiff
or to Plaintiff’s attorney), shall be delivered to Plaintiff’s attorney at Livgard, Lloyd & Christel
PLLP, P.O. Box 14906, Minneapolis, MN 55414.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 23, 2024
s/ Dulce J. Foster
DULCE J. FOSTER
United States Magistrate Judge
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?