Whitmore v. Commissioner of Social Security

W.D. Washington

Whitmore v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedSeptember 26, 2023

Docket3:22-cv-05485

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Whitmore v. Commissioner of Social Security, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 TACOMA DIVISION

9 CLAYTON WHITMORE, ) 10 ) CIVIL NO. 3:22-cv-05485-RSM Plaintiff, ) 11 ) ORDER vs. ) 12 ) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ) 13 ) Defendant ) 14 ) 15 16 17 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ stipulated motion for attorney’s fees 18 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 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 April 19th, 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). Furthermore, upon review of the stipulation and the 23 record, the Court determines that Plaintiff is the prevailing party, the government’s position was 24 not substantially justified, and that the itemization of attorney time spent is reasonable. In short, 25 the requirements of § 2412(d)(1)(B) are met. David Oliver & Associates 2608 South 47th Street, Suite C 1 Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court 2 hereby GRANTS the motion and awards Plaintiff $4,675.50 in attorney’s fees, subject to any 3 offset allowed under the Treasury Offset Program. See. Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 589 – 590 4 (2010). Payment of EAJA fees shall be sent to Plaintiff’s attorney by either EFT or check: David 5 Oliver at David Oliver & Associates, 2608 South 47th Street, Suite C, Tacoma, WA 98409. 6 Pursuant to Ratliff, award shall be payable to Plaintiff’s attorneys, David Oliver at David Oliver 7 & Associates, if the Commissioner confirms that Plaintiff owes no debt to the Government 8 through the Federal Treasury Offset program. 9 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s stipulated motion for attorney fees is GRANTED; 10 DATED this 26th day of September, 2023. 11 12 A 13 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18 Presented by: 19

20 S/David «F233» «F232» David P. Oliver, 21 Attorney for Plaintiff

22 23 24 25 David Oliver & Associates 2608 South 47th Street, Suite C

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

1 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 TACOMA DIVISION

9 CLAYTON WHITMORE, ) 10 ) CIVIL NO. 3:22-cv-05485-RSM Plaintiff, ) 11 ) ORDER vs. ) 12 ) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ) 13 ) Defendant ) 14 ) 15 16 17 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ stipulated motion for attorney’s fees 18 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 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 April 19th, 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). Furthermore, upon review of the stipulation and the 23 record, the Court determines that Plaintiff is the prevailing party, the government’s position was 24 not substantially justified, and that the itemization of attorney time spent is reasonable. In short, 25 the requirements of § 2412(d)(1)(B) are met. David Oliver & Associates 2608 South 47th Street, Suite C 1 Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court 2 hereby GRANTS the motion and awards Plaintiff $4,675.50 in attorney’s fees, subject to any 3 offset allowed under the Treasury Offset Program. See. Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 589 – 590 4 (2010). Payment of EAJA fees shall be sent to Plaintiff’s attorney by either EFT or check: David 5 Oliver at David Oliver & Associates, 2608 South 47th Street, Suite C, Tacoma, WA 98409. 6 Pursuant to Ratliff, award shall be payable to Plaintiff’s attorneys, David Oliver at David Oliver 7 & Associates, if the Commissioner confirms that Plaintiff owes no debt to the Government 8 through the Federal Treasury Offset program. 9 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s stipulated motion for attorney fees is GRANTED; 10 DATED this 26th day of September, 2023. 11 12 A 13 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18 Presented by: 19

20 S/David «F233» «F232» David P. Oliver, 21 Attorney for Plaintiff

22 23 24 25 David Oliver & Associates 2608 South 47th Street, Suite C

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Whitmore v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitmore-v-commissioner-of-social-security-wawd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack