Pope v. Astrue
Filing
26
ORDER by Judge Richard A Jones. The court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees (Dkt. # 22 ), but reduces fees slightly in accordance with the parties' agreement that the initial motion contains a minor calculation error. (CL)
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
9
MIRANDA L. POPE,
Plaintiff,
10
11
12
13
CASE NO. C12-2157RAJ
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, in her capacity
as Acting Commissioner 1of the Social
Security Administration,
ORDER
Defendant.
14
15
The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees (Dkt. # 22), but reduces
16
fees slightly in accordance with the parties’ agreement that the initial motion contains a
17
minor calculation error. The court awards Plaintiff attorney fees of $5,164.66 and
18
reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $24.83 for a total of $5,189.49 pursuant to
19
the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, subject to any offset as described in
20
Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010). Plaintiff is also awarded $13.10 in costs under
21
28 U.S.C. § 1920. The check(s) shall be mailed to Plaintiff’s attorney’s office:
22
23
Law Office of Steven M. Robey
1414 F Street
Bellingham, WA 98225
24
If it is determined that Plaintiff’s EAJA fees are not subject to any offset allowed
25
under the Department of the Treasury’s Offset Program, the check for EAJA fees shall be
26
1
27
28
In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), the court substitutes Ms. Colvin for
her predecessor, Michael J. Astrue.
ORDER – 1
1
made payable to the Law Office of Steven M. Robey, based upon Plaintiff’s assignment
2
of these amounts to Plaintiff’s attorney.
3
DATED this 29th day of October, 2013.
4
A
5
6
The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Court Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER – 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?