El v. Berryhill
Filing
23
ORDER granting 21 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 4/5/21. (mga)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CASE NO. 3:18-CV-237-DCK
LATASHA EL,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW SAUL,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Plaintiff’s Motion For Attorney Fees
Under § 406(b) Of The Social Security Act” (Document No. 21) filed February 2, 2021. The
parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and
immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion and the record, the
undersigned will grant the motion.
By the instant motion, Plaintiff seeks an Order directing that the Commissioner of Social
Security should pay the sum of $18,000.00 for attorney fees, representing less than 25% of
Plaintiff’s accrued back benefits, to be paid from Plaintiff’s back benefits pursuant to § 406(b) of
the Social Security Act. (Document No. 21). Plaintiff’s counsel notes that she achieved an award
of “over $120,000.00 in back benefits as well as ongoing benefits” for her client. (Document No.
21, p. 2).
Defendant has filed a response stating that he “neither supports nor opposes Plaintiff’s
counsel’s request for fees.” (Document No. 22, p. 1).
The undersigned finds Plaintiff’s motion, arguments, and legal authority to be persuasive.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Plaintiff’s Motion For Attorney Fees Under §
406(b) Of The Social Security Act” (Document No. 21) is GRANTED. The Commissioner of
Social Security shall pay to Plaintiff’s counsel, Charlotte W. Hall, the sum of $18,000.00, sent to
her office at P.O. Box 58129, Raleigh, North Carolina 27658, and then Plaintiff’s counsel shall
pay to Plaintiff the sum of $8,000.00, and upon the payment of such sums, this case is dismissed
with prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: April 5, 2021
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?