Capitani v. Astrue
This text of 438 F. App'x 605 (Capitani v. Astrue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Capitani’s attorney’s late-filed application for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act because her reasons for missing the deadline amounted to “a garden variety claim of excusable neglect.” Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96, 111 S.Ct. 453, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990); see Le v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 1200, 1201 (9th Cir.2008); see also Modrowski v. Mote, 322 F.3d 965, 968-69 (7th Cir.2003).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
438 F. App'x 605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capitani-v-astrue-ca9-2011.