Bauder v. Colvin

Filing 24

ORDER granting 23 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Veronica L. Duffy on 3/18/15. (DJP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KELLY JO BAUDER,

FILED
MAR 18 2015

~~

4: 13-CV-04111-LLP

Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY'S FEES

vs.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY;
Defendant.

BACKGROUND
Pending is the parties' stipulated motion for an award of attorney fees
and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). Docket 23. The
parties agree Plaintiff will receive attorney fees in the amount of $7,500.00,
sales tax in the amount of $450.00, and postage expenses in the amount of
$18.33 under the EAJA, for a total of $7,968.33 in expenses. Defendant also
agrees to pay Plaintiff $400.00 in costs for the filing fee. There is a distinction
between "expenses" under the EAJA, which are paid by the Agency funds, and
"costs," which are paid by the Judgment fund. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2412(c)(l),
2412(d)(2)(A), 2412(d)(2)(4) and 2414. The parties have stipulated that Plaintiff
assigned her right to EAJA fees to her attorney.

ORDER
It is ORDERED that pursuant to the parties' stipulated motion (Docket

23) the Commissioner shall pay to Plaintiff reasonable attorney fees in the

amount of $7,500.00, sales tax in the amount of $450.00, and postage
expenses in the amount of $18.33 under the EAJA, for a total of $7,968.33 in
expenses.

It is further ORDERED Defendant shall pay plaintiff costs in the

amount of $400.00.
It is further ORDERED that payment of this compromise settlement shall

constitute a complete release and bar to any and all claims Plaintiff may have
relating to EAJA fees in connection with this action. This EAJA award is
without prejudice to the rights of Plaintiffs attorney to seek attorney fees
pursuant to the Social Security Act 206(b), 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to the
offset provisions of EAJA.
It is further ORDERED that the above costs and fees should be paid to

the Plaintiff pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 2538-39 (2010). In
the event it is determined upon effectuation of the court's EAJA fee Order that
Plaintiff does not owe a debt that is subject to offset under the Treasury Offset
Program 1, however, the Commissioner has agreed to waive the requirements of
the Anti-Assignment act.2 In that case, the funds shall be paid directly to the
Plaintiffs attorney pursuant to the parties' Stipulated Motion (Docket 23) which
has been filed with the Court.

f"'

DATED this

JI_ day of March, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

t/~

VERONICA L. DUF Y
United States Magistrate ..l
i

2

31 U.S.C. § 3716(c)(3)(B).
31 u.s.c. § 3727.
2