Canty v. Commissioner of Social Security

W.D. Washington

Canty v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedMarch 10, 2022

Docket3:20-cv-06197

StatusUnknown

This text of Canty v. Commissioner of Social Security (Canty v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Canty v. Commissioner of Social Security, (W.D. Wash. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 2 3 4 3 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA g | DONNA CANTY, ) ) CIVIL NO. 3:20-cv-06197-RSM 10 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER 11 vs. ) ) 12 | COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, _) ) 13 Defendant ) 14 ) 5 This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs motion for attorney’s fees pursuant l to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 17 The motion is timely as Plaintiff had a 60-day appeal period, plus the 30-day period in 1 §2412(d)(1)(B), from the entry of final judgement on August 3, 2021 to file a timely EAJA application. Akopyan v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 852 (9"" Cir. 2002); Melkonyan vy. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 20 89, 94-96 (1991); FED. R. App. P. 4(a). F urthermore, upon review of the motion and the record, the Court determines that Plaintiff is the prevailing party, the government’s position was not 2 2 substantially justified, and that the itemization of attorney time spent is reasonable. In short, the 2 3 requirements of § 2412(d)(1)(B) are met. 24 25 David Oliver & Associates 2608 South 47" Street, Suite C ORDER FOR EAJA FEES - 1 Tacoma, WA 98409 (253) 472-4357 david@sslawyer.org

1 Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court 2 | hereby GRANTS the motion and awards Plaintiff $7,110.98 in attorney’s fees, subject to any 3 | offset allowed under the Treasury Offset Program. See. Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 589 — 590 4 | (2010). Payment of EAJA fees shall be sent to Plaintiff's attorney: David Oliver at David Oliver 5 | & Associates, 2608 South 47" Street, Suite C, Tacoma, WA 98409. Pursuant to Ratiff, award 6 | shall be made payable to Plaintiffs attorney, David Oliver at David Oliver & Associates, if the 7 | Commissioner confirms that Plaintiff owes no debt to the Government through the Federal 8 | Treasury Offset program. 9 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's stipulated motion for attorney fees is GRANTED; 10 DATED this 10th day of March, 2022. 11 12 A > Ricardo S. Martinez 13 United States District Judge Presented by: 14 15 . S/David P. OLIVER 16 | David P. Oliver, Attorney for Plaintiff 17 . 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 David Oliver & Associates 2608 South 47" Street, Suite C ORDER FOR EAJA FEES - 2 Tacoma, WA 98409 (253) 472-4357 david@sslawyer.org

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 2 3 4 3 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA g | DONNA CANTY, ) ) CIVIL NO. 3:20-cv-06197-RSM 10 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER 11 vs. ) ) 12 | COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, _) ) 13 Defendant ) 14 ) 5 This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs motion for attorney’s fees pursuant l to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 17 The motion is timely as Plaintiff had a 60-day appeal period, plus the 30-day period in 1 §2412(d)(1)(B), from the entry of final judgement on August 3, 2021 to file a timely EAJA application. Akopyan v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 852 (9"" Cir. 2002); Melkonyan vy. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 20 89, 94-96 (1991); FED. R. App. P. 4(a). F urthermore, upon review of the motion and the record, the Court determines that Plaintiff is the prevailing party, the government’s position was not 2 2 substantially justified, and that the itemization of attorney time spent is reasonable. In short, the 2 3 requirements of § 2412(d)(1)(B) are met. 24 25 David Oliver & Associates 2608 South 47" Street, Suite C ORDER FOR EAJA FEES - 1 Tacoma, WA 98409 (253) 472-4357 david@sslawyer.org

1 Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court 2 | hereby GRANTS the motion and awards Plaintiff $7,110.98 in attorney’s fees, subject to any 3 | offset allowed under the Treasury Offset Program. See. Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 589 — 590 4 | (2010). Payment of EAJA fees shall be sent to Plaintiff's attorney: David Oliver at David Oliver 5 | & Associates, 2608 South 47" Street, Suite C, Tacoma, WA 98409. Pursuant to Ratiff, award 6 | shall be made payable to Plaintiffs attorney, David Oliver at David Oliver & Associates, if the 7 | Commissioner confirms that Plaintiff owes no debt to the Government through the Federal 8 | Treasury Offset program. 9 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's stipulated motion for attorney fees is GRANTED; 10 DATED this 10th day of March, 2022. 11 12 A > Ricardo S. Martinez 13 United States District Judge Presented by: 14 15 . S/David P. OLIVER 16 | David P. Oliver, Attorney for Plaintiff 17 . 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 David Oliver & Associates 2608 South 47" Street, Suite C ORDER FOR EAJA FEES - 2 Tacoma, WA 98409 (253) 472-4357 david@sslawyer.org

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Canty v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canty-v-commissioner-of-social-security-wawd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack