Weber v. Social Security Administration

Filing 38

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: The parties' Joint Motion to Approve Compromise of Plaintiff's Application for Relief Under the EAJA (Filing No. 37 ) is granted. Payment in the amount of $8,000.00 shall be paid directly to attorney Ste phen Speicher as set forth herein. The Plaintiff's bill of costs (Filing No. 28 ), the Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees under the EAJA (Filing No. 31 ), the Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment (Filing No. 33 ), and the Defendant's Motion to Withdraw its Response (Filing No. 36 ) to the Motion to Alter or Amend are denied as moot. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (TCL )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
VICKY L. WEBER,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:10CV3229

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Approve Compromise
of Plaintiff’s Application for Relief Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), Filing
No. 37.
The parties have advised the court that they have agreed to an award of EAJA fees
and expenses in this case in the amount of $8,000.00. Accordingly, as Plaintiff’s relief
under the EAJA, Defendant is ordered to pay attorney fees and expenses in the amount
of $8,000.00. The EAJA award shall be paid directly to Plaintiff’s counsel, Stephen
Speicher, as Defendant has verified with the Department of Treasury that Plaintiff does not
owe a debt to the United States that is subject to offset, see Astrue v. Ratliff, — U.S. —,
130 S. Ct. 2521 (2010), and Plaintiff has signed a fee agreement assigning any award to
which she may be entitled under the EAJA to her attorney. Accordingly, the EAJA award
will paid directly to Plaintiff’s attorney based on the assignment.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The parties’ Joint Motion to Approve Compromise of Plaintiff’s Application for
Relief Under the EAJA (Filing No. 37) is granted. Payment in the amount of $8,000.00
shall be paid directly to attorney Stephen Speicher as set forth herein.

2. The Plaintiff's bill of costs (Filing No. 28), the Plaintiff's motion for attorney’s fees
under the EAJA (Filing No. 31), the Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment
(Filing No. 33), and the Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw its Response (Filing No. 36) to the
Motion to Alter or Amend are denied as moot.
DATED this 1st day of May, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
United States District Judge

2