Garcia v. Social Security Administration

CourtDistrict Court, D. New Mexico
DecidedMarch 4, 2025
Docket1:24-cv-00964
StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook
Garcia v. Social Security Administration, (D.N.M. 2025).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

ANITA A. G.,

Plaintiff,

v. Civ. No. 24-964 GBW

LELAND DUDEK, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration1,

Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, with Memorandum in Support. Doc. 14. The parties have stipulated to an award of $602.40 in attorney fees and $0.00 in costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (“EAJA”). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is awarded $602.40 in attorney fees and $0.00 in costs under the EAJA. The EAJA fees will be paid to Plaintiff but delivered to Plaintiff’s attorney. See Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 595-98 (2010); Manning v. Astrue,

1 Leland Dudek is now the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure, Leland Dudek should be substituted for Commissioner Martin O’Malley as the defendant in this suit. 510 F.3d 1246, 1255 (10th Cir. 2007); Brown v. Astrue, 271 F. App’x 741, 743-44 (10th Cir. 2008) (unpublished). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff's attorney ultimately receives an award of attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), said attorney must refund the smaller award to Plaintiff pursuant to Weakley v. Bowen, 803 F.2d 575, 580 (10th Cir. 1986). The award is subject to the offset provisions of the EAJA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(c)(1). fit CHIEF UNIV¥D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Presiding by Consent

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

Related

Astrue v. Ratliff
560 U.S. 586 (Supreme Court, 2010)
Manning v. Astrue
510 F.3d 1246 (Tenth Circuit, 2007)
Brown v. Astrue
271 F. App'x 741 (Tenth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Garcia v. Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garcia-v-social-security-administration-nmd-2025.