Stavrakis v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

Filing 36

ORDER - Plaintiff's unopposed application for attorney's fees (Dkt. 33 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded $6,195.53 for attorney's fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412. EAJA fees are subject to any offsets allowed under the Tr easury Offset Program, as discussed in Ratliff, 560 U.S. at 593-94. Because Plaintiff has filed with the court an assignment of EAJA fees to counsel (Dkt. 35 -1), Defendant shall cause the payment of fees, if there are no applicable offsets, to be m ade payable to Plaintiff's counsel. If there are applicable offsets, Defendant shall cause the payment of any fees remaining after the offset is deducted to be made payable to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiff's counsel. Signed on 7/22/2014 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

RICHARD PETER STAVRAKIS,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 6:12-cv-01929-SI
ORDER

v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
On April 21, 2014, the Court reversed the Commissioner’s determination that Plaintiff
was not disabled and remanded the matter back to the agency for further proceedings. Dkt. 31.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s unopposed application for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal
Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Dkt. 33.
The EAJA authorizes the payment of attorney’s fees to a prevailing party in an action
against the United States, unless the government shows that its position in the underlying
litigation “was substantially justified.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Although the EAJA creates a
presumption that fees will be awarded to a prevailing party, Congress did not intend fee shifting
to be mandatory. Flores v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 562, 567 (9th Cir. 1995). The decision to deny EAJA
PAGE 1 – OPINION AND ORDER

attorney’s fees is within the discretion of the court. Id.; Lewis v. Barnhart, 281 F.3d 1081, 1083
(9th Cir. 2002). A social security claimant is the “prevailing party” following a sentence-four
remand pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) either for further administrative proceedings or for the
payment of benefits. Flores, 49 F.3d at 567-68 (citing Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300
(1993)). Fee awards under the EAJA are paid to the litigant, and not the litigant’s attorney,
unless the litigant has assigned his or her rights to counsel to receive the fee award. Astrue v.
Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 596-98 (2010).
Plaintiff seeks an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $6,195.53. Plaintiff does not
seek an award for any costs or expenses. Defendant stipulates to Plaintiff’s fee request. Dkt. 33.
Plaintiff’s unopposed application for attorney’s fees (Dkt.33) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is
awarded $6,195.53 for attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412. EAJA fees are subject to any
offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset Program, as discussed in Ratliff, 560 U.S. at 593-94.
Because Plaintiff has filed with the court an assignment of EAJA fees to counsel (Dkt. 35-1),
Defendant shall cause the payment of fees, if there are no applicable offsets, to be made payable
to Plaintiff’s counsel. If there are applicable offsets, Defendant shall cause the payment of any
fees remaining after the offset is deducted to be made payable to Plaintiff and mailed to
Plaintiff’s counsel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 22nd day of July, 2014.
/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge

PAGE 2 – OPINION AND ORDER