Mader v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
27
ORDER signed by Chief Judge Pamela Pepper on 2/27/2020 GRANTING 26 stipulated motion for attorney fees under the EAJA. Defendant to pay plaintiff $6,600 award of attorney fees in full satisfaction and settlement of any and all claims plaintiff may have in this case under EAJA. (cc: all counsel) (cb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
THOMAS GERARD MADER,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 16-cv-1705-pp
v.
COMMISSIONER OF THE
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION FOR AWARD UNDER THE
EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (DKT. NO. 26)
On February 26, 2020, the parties filed a Stipulated Motion to an Award
of Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412,
asking the court to enter an order awarding attorneys’ fees under the Equal
Access to Justice Act. Dkt. No. 26.
The court APPROVES the stipulation and GRANTS the parties’ motion
for award under the EAJA. Dkt. No. 26. The court ORDERS that the defendant
shall pay to the plaintiff an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $6,600,
in full satisfaction and settlement of any and all claims the plaintiff may have
in this case under the EAJA. The court awards these fees to the plaintiff, not
the plaintiff’s attorney, and under Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), the
United States may offset the award to satisfy pre-existing debts that the litigant
owes the United States.
1
If counsel for the parties verify that the plaintiff owes no pre-existing debt
subject to offset, the defendant shall direct that the award be made payable to
the plaintiff’s attorney, pursuant to the EAJA assignment duly signed by the
plaintiff and counsel.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 27th day of February, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
Chief United States District Judge
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?