Davis v Astrue
Filing
24
ORDER granting 22 Motion for EAJA Attorney Fees, signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)
1
The Honorable Ronald B. Leighton
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
TACOMA DIVISION
7
8
LATIF B. DAVIS,
9
Plaintiff,
10
v.
11
12
13
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
)
) No. 3:11-cv-05043-RBL-JRC
)
)
) PROPOSED ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
14
15
Based upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees, Expenses, and Costs Under the Equal Access
16
to Justice Act and Plaintiff’s Contract for Attorney Representation in Federal Court, it is
17
hereby ordered that attorney’s and paralegal’s fees in the amount of $3,903.01 and expenses
18
in the amount of $27.57 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d); and
19
costs in the amount of $357.50 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920; 31 U.S.C. §1304(a), shall:
20
(1) Be awarded to Plaintiff pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, – U.S. –, 130 S. Ct.
21
2521 (2010) and delivered to Plaintiff's counsel, Robert A. Friedman; however,
22
(2) If the U.S. Department of the Treasury determines that Plaintiff’s EAJA
23
fees, expenses, and costs are not subject to any offset allowed under the
24
25
26
Proposed Order - 1
[No. C11-5043-RBL-JRC]
ROBERT A. FRIEDMAN and ASSOCIATES
3410 Broadway
Everett, Washington 98201
(425) 252-5551
FAX (425) 259-7111
1
Department of the Treasury’s Offset Program, then the check for EAJA fees,
2
expenses, and costs shall be made payable to Plaintiff’s attorney, Robert A.
3
Friedman, based upon Plaintiff's assignment of these amounts to him.
4
5
Dated:
June 19, 2012.
6
7
A
Ronald B Leighton
United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Proposed Order - 2
[No. C11-5043-RBL-JRC]
ROBERT A. FRIEDMAN and ASSOCIATES
3410 Broadway
Everett, Washington 98201
(425) 252-5551
FAX (425) 259-7111
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?