Pearson v. Astrue

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Pursuant to the agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant (see filing 27 ), Plaintiff is awarded attorney fees of $6,750.00. Plaintiff's application for attorneys fees pursuant to the EAJA (filing 26 ) is denied as moot. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (TEL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
LISA M. PEARSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:11CV83

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court upon Plaintiff’s application for attorney fees
pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (Filing 26.)
In her motion, Plaintiff requests fees in the amount of $6,928.90, which represents
38.85 hours of work by her attorney at an average hourly rate of $178.35. After
Plaintiff filed her motion, Defendant filed a response. (Filing 27.) In this response,
Defendant states that Plaintiff and Defendant have agreed to an award of EAJA fees
in the amount of $6,750.00. (Id.)
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

Pursuant to the agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant (see filing

27), Plaintiff is awarded attorney fees of $6,750.00.
2.

Plaintiff’s application for attorneys fees pursuant to the EAJA (filing 26)

is denied as moot.
3.

By separate document, the court shall enter judgment for Plaintiff and

against Defendant, providing that Plaintiff is awarded attorney fees of $6,750.00.

DATED this 17 th day of January, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
s/Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend,
approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties
or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
2