(SS) Hornbeak v. Commissioner of Social Security

E.D. California

(SS) Hornbeak v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedFebruary 16, 2021

Docket2:18-cv-00142

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

(SS) Hornbeak v. Commissioner of Social Security, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDREA HORNBEAK, No. 2:18-cv-0142 DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, 15 16 Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff brought this action seeking judicial review of a final administrative decision 19 denying an application for Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act 20 and for Supplement Security Income under Title XVI of the Act. On August 23, 2019, the court 21 issued an order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in part and remanding the 22 matter for further proceedings.1 (ECF No. 22.) Further administrative proceedings resulted in a 23 favorable decision for plaintiff. (Pl.’s Mot. (ECF No. 29) at 2.) 24 On October 6, 2020, counsel for plaintiff filed a motion for an award of attorney’s fees 25 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). (ECF No. 29.) Plaintiff’s motion seeks an award of $6,000. (Id. 26 at 4.) Defendant filed a response, however, noting that plaintiff had already been awarded $6,500 27 1 Both parties have previously consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction over this action 28 1 | in fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (““EAJA”). (ECF No. 31 at 4.) Thereafter, plaintiff 2 | filed a reply requesting “leave to amend the motion to $12,500.” (ECF No. 32 at 2.) 3 Plaintiff's request will be granted. Plaintiff's amended motion shall be sure to clarify the 4 | amount requested and how that amount relates to the 25% statutory cap. See Gisbrecht v. 5 | Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 802 (2002). 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. Plaintiffs request to file an amended motion is granted; 8 2. Counsel for plaintiff shall file an amended fee motion within twenty-eight days of the 9 | date of this order; and 10 3. Defendant may file an opposition or statement of non-opposition within fourteen days 11 | of the date of filing of plaintiff's amended fee motion. 12 | Dated: February 15, 2021

14 15 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 1 DLB:6 DB\orders\orders.soc sec\hornbeak0142.Ita.ord 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDREA HORNBEAK, No. 2:18-cv-0142 DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, 15 16 Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff brought this action seeking judicial review of a final administrative decision 19 denying an application for Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act 20 and for Supplement Security Income under Title XVI of the Act. On August 23, 2019, the court 21 issued an order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in part and remanding the 22 matter for further proceedings.1 (ECF No. 22.) Further administrative proceedings resulted in a 23 favorable decision for plaintiff. (Pl.’s Mot. (ECF No. 29) at 2.) 24 On October 6, 2020, counsel for plaintiff filed a motion for an award of attorney’s fees 25 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). (ECF No. 29.) Plaintiff’s motion seeks an award of $6,000. (Id. 26 at 4.) Defendant filed a response, however, noting that plaintiff had already been awarded $6,500 27 1 Both parties have previously consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction over this action 28 1 | in fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (““EAJA”). (ECF No. 31 at 4.) Thereafter, plaintiff 2 | filed a reply requesting “leave to amend the motion to $12,500.” (ECF No. 32 at 2.) 3 Plaintiff's request will be granted. Plaintiff's amended motion shall be sure to clarify the 4 | amount requested and how that amount relates to the 25% statutory cap. See Gisbrecht v. 5 | Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 802 (2002). 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. Plaintiffs request to file an amended motion is granted; 8 2. Counsel for plaintiff shall file an amended fee motion within twenty-eight days of the 9 | date of this order; and 10 3. Defendant may file an opposition or statement of non-opposition within fourteen days 11 | of the date of filing of plaintiff's amended fee motion. 12 | Dated: February 15, 2021

14 15 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 1 DLB:6 DB\orders\orders.soc sec\hornbeak0142.Ita.ord 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(SS) Hornbeak v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ss-hornbeak-v-commissioner-of-social-security-caed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack