AVALOS
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court granted the plaintiff's motion for attorney fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Plaintiff sued the Commissioner of Social Security for denial of disability benefits. The court reversed and remanded the case, and judgment was enter…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Assignment Of Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: PLAINTIFF’S CONSENT PETITION FOR ATTORNEY FEES (Doc. No. 31) FILED: October 28, 2022
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff, through counsel of record, filed a complaint against the Commissioner of Social Security regarding the denial of an application for disability benefits. Doc. No. 1. On August 30, 2022, the Court entered a Memorandum of Decision reversing and remanding the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Doc. No. 29. Judgment was entered in Plaintiff’s favor and against the Commissioner the following day. Doc. No. 30. On October 28, 2022,1 Plaintiff filed a motion for an award of attorney’s fees
pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). Doc. No. 31. Plaintiff requests a total of $5,022.89 in attorney’s fees under the EAJA, for work performed by her counsel in 2021 and 2022. Doc. No. 31, see also Doc. No. 31-
2. In addition, Plaintiff requests to recover $402.00 in costs for the filing fee. Doc. No. 31, at 1. The Commissioner does not oppose the motion. Id. at 3. Upon consideration, and absent any objection from the Commissioner, the
Court finds the request for fees and costs pursuant to the EAJA well taken. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Consent Petition for Attorney Fees (Doc. No. 31) is
| Oy Ico
LESLIE NOFFMAN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
? Plaintiff's motion references an assignment of EAJA fees from Plaintiff to counsel. Doc. No. 31-1. In the motion, Plaintiff only states that “[t]he parties agree that after the Court issues an order awarding EAJA fees to Plaintiff, the Commissioner will determine whether Plaintiff owes a debt to the government. If the U.S. Department of the Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, the government will accept [...] assignment of EAJA fees and pay fees directly to Plaintiff’s counsel.” Doc. No. 31, at 2-3. The government may exercise its discretion to honor Plaintiff's assignment of attorney’s fees awarded under the EAJA if the government determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, but the Court will not order the government to do so.