Lucero v. Social Security Administration

D. New Mexico

Lucero v. Social Security Administration

District Court, D. New Mexico·Decided March 7, 2023·No. 1:22-cv-00693·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO SHANE ELI LUCERO, Plaintiff, vs. Civ. No. 22-00693 JHR KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT The Court, having reviewed the parties’ Unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (Doc. 16), HEREBY ORDERS that attorney fees be, and hereby are, awarded under the EAJA, payable to Plaintiff but mailed to Plaintiffs attorney in the amount of $1,058.50 in attorney fees and $402.00 in filing fees. See Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010) (EAJA fees are paid to the prevailing party, not the attorney). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, if Plaintiff's counsel receives attorney fees under both the EAJA and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) of the Social Security Act, Plaintiffs counsel shall refund the smaller award to Plaintiff pursuant to Weakley v. Bowen, 803 F.2d 575, 580 (10th Cir. 1986). SIGNED March 7, 2023.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JERRY H. RITTER

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO SHANE ELI LUCERO, Plaintiff, vs. Civ. No. 22-00693 JHR KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT The Court, having reviewed the parties’ Unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (Doc. 16), HEREBY ORDERS that attorney fees be, and hereby are, awarded under the EAJA, payable to Plaintiff but mailed to Plaintiffs attorney in the amount of $1,058.50 in attorney fees and $402.00 in filing fees. See Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010) (EAJA fees are paid to the prevailing party, not the attorney). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, if Plaintiff's counsel receives attorney fees under both the EAJA and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) of the Social Security Act, Plaintiffs counsel shall refund the smaller award to Plaintiff pursuant to Weakley v. Bowen, 803 F.2d 575, 580 (10th Cir. 1986). SIGNED March 7, 2023.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JERRY H. RITTER

Lucero v. Social Security Administration, (D.N.M. 2023).

Pincite

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

Opinion

Related