Etti Biton v. Jeffrey Jackson

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

ETTI BITON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-23-968-SLP ) JEFFREY JACKSON, ) ) Defendant. )

O R D E R Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion To Modify Order Regarding Attorney Fees [Doc. No. 152]. Plaintiff requests that the Court modify the Court’s Order [Doc. No. 150] granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. Specifically, Plaintiff requests that the award of attorney fees be directed to her former counsel of record, Black Box Legal Group. [Doc. No. 152] at 5.1 Neither the original Motion for Attorneys’ Fees [Doc. No. 140] nor the present Motion cite authority supporting the proposition that attorney fees in an action under 8 U.S.C. § 1183a(c) can be awarded to non-party counsel rather than a party itself.2 The inclusion of Plaintiff’s attorney fee arrangement with her former counsel of record does not inherently justify directing payment to Plaintiff’s former counsel. As such, the Court DENIES the request to modify the Court’s Order.

1 Plaintiff also seeks a modification to the Order “to clarify that Plaintiff bears no financial responsibility for the awarded attorney fees.” Id. The Court DENIES the request as the Court notes that the Order itself does not impose a financial obligation upon Plaintiff.

2 See, e.g., Busby v. City of Tulsa, No. 11-CV-447-JED-JFJ, 2019 WL 13298882, at *1 (N.D. Okla. Apr. 5, 2019). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Etti Biton’s Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees [Doc. No. 140] is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 5" day of January, 2026. LZ bop SCOTT L. PALK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE