QUINN v. ASTRUE
MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES UNDER EAJA (DOC. #19) IS GRANTED; AND DEFENDANT COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY MICHAEL ASTRUE SHALL PAY MR. QUINN'S COUNSEL, ROBERT SAVOY, THE SUM OF $5,608.51.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE LOUIS H. POLLAK ON 6/14/2010. 6/15/2010 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED.(tomg, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL QUINN, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL ASTRUE Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION No. 07-1983
1 4 of June, 2010 M E M O R A N D U M /O R D E R
C u rre n tly before this court is plaintiff Michael Quinn's Motion for Attorney's Fees U n d er the Equal Access to Justice Act. On March 25, 2010 upon the motion of Mr. Q u in n , I issued an order remanding the matter so that the administrative record could be m o re fully developed to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to disability benefits. Mr. Quinn, through counsel, contends that he was the prevailing party in that case, th a t the Commissioner's position was not substantially justified, that his petition for a tto rn e y's fees is timely, and that the fee requested is reasonable. Mr. Quinn claims that, p u rsua n t to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2412, he is entitled to attorney's f e e s in the amount of $5,608.51. The Commissioner has filed a response stating that he does not object to Mr. Q u inn 's motion for attorney's fees for all legal services rendered on behalf of Mr.
Quinn's counsel in connection with this civil action. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED th a t: (1 ) Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (D o c k e t # 19) is GRANTED; and (2) Defendant Commissioner of Social Security Michael Astrue shall pay to Mr. Q u in n 's counsel, Robert Savoy, the sum of $5,608.51.
BY THE COURT: /s / LHP Pollak, J.
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?