Gatti v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon·Decided November 19, 2024·No. 6:23-cv-00396·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON TINA G., Civil No. 6:23-CV-00396-SB Plaintiff, ORDER FOR ATTORNEY FEES vs. PURSUANT TO EAJA Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant. ____________________________________ After considering the Stipulated Motion of the parties submitted herein, Order hereby grants that Commissioner shall pay Plaintiff’s attorney the sum of $14,677.20 upon verification that Plaintiff has no debt to the government which qualifies for offset against the awarded fees, pursuant to the reasoning in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 130 S. Ct. 2521, 2527 (2010) (EAJA awards fees subject “to a federal administrative offset if the Litigant has outstanding federal debts”) for full settlement of all claims for fees under EAJA. 1 – ORDER FOR ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO EAJA If Plaintiff has no such federal debt, payment of $14,677.20 shall be made to Plaintiff's attorneys, Drew L. Johnson, P.C., and mailed to their office at 1700 Valley River Drive, Suite 100, Eugene, OR 97401. If Plaintiff has such debt, the check for any remaining funds after offset shall be made out to Plaintiff and mailed to counsel’s office at the address provided above. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of November 19 _, 2024 Sai 7, Pecter ™ 7 Hon. Stacie F. Beckerman U.S. Magistrate Judge

PRESENTED BY: By: /s/SHERWOOD J. REESE Sherwood J. Reese, OSB #144130 Of Drew L. Johnson, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff

2 —ORDER FOR ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO EAJA

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

Gatti v. Commissioner Social Security Administration, (D. Or. 2024).

Gatti v. Commissioner Social Security Administration (Gatti v. Commissioner Social Security Administration) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Astrue v. Ratliff
560 U.S. 586 (Supreme Court, 2010)