Ivey v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided January 5, 2024·No. 3:22-cv-05430·Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT TACOMA

9 BRANDON J. IVEY, Case No. 3:22-CV-05430-RSM 10

11 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2412 12 v. 13 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 14 SECURITY,

15 Defendant. 16 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees pursuant 17 18 to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Dkt. #19. 19 The Motion is timely as Plaintiff had a 60-day appeal period, plus the 30-day period in 20 §2412(d)(1)(B), from the entry of final judgment on July 3, 2023, to file a timely EAJA 21 application. Akopyan v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 852 (9th Cir. 2002); Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 22 89, 94-96 (1991); FED. R. App. P. 4(a); Dkt. #18. Upon review of the Motion and the record, 23 24 the Court determines that Plaintiff is the prevailing party, the government’s position was not 25 substantially justified, and that the itemization of attorney time spent is reasonable. In short, the 26 requirements of § 2412(d)(1)(B) are met. 27 28 Furthermore, Defendant has failed to respond to the Motion. Under Local Civil Rule 1 2 7(b)(2), “[e]xcept for motions for summary judgment, if a party fails to file papers in opposition 3 to a motion, such failure may be considered by the court as an admission that the motion has 4 merit.” The Court deems Defendant’s failure to respond to be such an admission in this case. 5 Having thoroughly considered the Plaintiff’s briefing and the relevant record, the Court 6 hereby GRANTS the Motion and awards Plaintiff $6,786.09 in attorney’s fees, subject to any 7 8 offset allowed under the Treasury Offset Program. See. Astrue v. Ratiff, 560 U.S. 586, 589 – 590 9 (2010). If EAJA fees are not subject to any offset, payment of this award shall be made via EFT 10 or check to Attorney David Oliver’s address: David Oliver & Associates, 2608 South 47th Street, 11 Suite C, Tacoma, WA 98409. 12 13 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees is GRANTED. 14 DATED this 5th day of January, 2024. 15 A 16 17 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

Ivey v. Commissioner of Social Security, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

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

Related

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