Tenaglia v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
Filing
35
ORDER re 34 Stipulation filed by Commissioner Social Security Administration. The court orders the Defendant to pay the sum of $2,500.00 in attorney's fees, subject to the Treasury Offset Program if the prevail ing party owes a debt to the federal government. Motions terminated: 33 MOTION for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 filed by Theresa Tenaglia. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 6/28/2016. (abuc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Theresa Tenaglia,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner )
of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)
C/A No.: 6:14-cv-04920-RBH
ORDER
On June 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to
Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, on the basis that the position taken by the defendant in this
action was not substantially justified. On June 28, 2016, the parties filed a joint stipulation
indicating that the parties agreed to an EAJA award of $2,500.00 in attorney’s fees. The stipulation
provides that fees awarded are subject to be offset if the prevailing party owes a debt to the federal
government.
Based on the foregoing and after considering the briefs and materials submitted by the
parties, the court orders the Defendant to pay the sum of $2,500.00 in attorney’s fees, subject to the
Treasury Offset Program if the prevailing party owes a debt to the federal government. However,
the payment shall be made payable to the claimant pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521
(2010), and mailed to his attorney, with a copy to the claimant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 28, 2016
Florence, South Carolina
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
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?