Kramer v. Saul

District Court, S.D. California·Decided May 20, 2022·No. 3:20-cv-02065·Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7

8 DEBORAH ANN KRAMER, ) No.: 3:20-CV-02065-GPC-AHG ) 9 Plaintiff, ) 10 ) ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY v. ) FEES UNDER THE EQUAL 11 ) ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 12 COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL ) PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, ) AND COSTS, PURSUANT TO 28 13 ) U.S.C. § 1920 14 Defendant. ) ) 15

17 Based upon the parties’ Stipulation for the Award and Payment of Equal 18 Access to Justice Act (EAJA) Fees and Costs, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall 19 be awarded attorney fees under the EAJA in the amount of SEVEN THOUSAND 20 THREE HUNDRED FIVE DOLLARS AND NINE CENTS ($7,305.09), and costs 21 under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, in the amount of FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS 22 ($400.00), subject to the terms of the above-referenced Stipulation, to include the 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 1 || United States Department of the Treasury’s Offset Program pursuant to Astrue v. 2 || Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010). Any payment shall be delivered to Plaintiff's 3 counsel. 4 ; Dated: May 20, 2022 2 sale Ox 6 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

Kramer v. Saul, (S.D. Cal. 2022).

Kramer v. Saul (Kramer v. Saul) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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