TEFEL
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court recommended granting Plaintiff's unopposed motion for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Plaintiff, the prevailing party after a remand order, sought attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The Commissioner of Social Securit…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Assignment Of Eaja Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Attorney's Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. 17). By the Motion, Plaintiff seeks attorney's fees in the amount of $7,250.00 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). On March 27, 2025, this Court entered an Order reversing and remanding the case to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings (Doc. 14). Thereafter, the Clerk entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff (Doc. 15).
As the prevailing party, Plaintiff now requests an award of attorney's fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); cf. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300–02 (1993) 1 Frank Bisignano is now the Commissioner of Social Security. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Commissioner Frank Bisignano should be substituted as the defendant in this matter. No further action needs to be taken to continue this matter by reason of the last sentence of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
(concluding that a party who wins a sentence-four remand order under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party), superseded by rule on other grounds, Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(c)(2)(B). After issuance of an order awarding EAJA fees, the United States Department of the Treasury will determine whether Plaintiff owes a debt to the government. If Plaintiff has no discernible federal debt, the government will accept Plaintiff's assignment of EAJA fees and pay the fees directly to Plaintiff's counsel.
The Commissioner does not oppose the requested relief (Doc. 17, at 2). Additionally, Plaintiff's attorney filed time records and declarations in support of the motion (Docs. 17-1, 17-2). Therefore, for the reasons set out in Plaintiff's motion and supported by the declarations, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED: 1. Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Attorney's Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. 17) be GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff be awarded fees in the amount of $7,250.00. Unless the Department of Treasury determines that Plaintiff owes a federal debt, the government must pay the fees and costs to Plaintiff's counsel in accordance with Plaintiff's assignment (Doc. 17-4).
IT IS SO REPORTED in Tampa, Florida, on this 1st day of July 2025.
cc: Counsel of Record
whitech-
ANTHONY E. PORCELLI
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 8:24-cv-02749-TPB-АЕР Document 18 Filed 07/01/25
NOTICE TO PARTIES
A party has fourteen days from the date they are served a copy of this report to file written objections to this report's proposed findings and recommendations or to seek an extension of the fourteen-day deadline to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A party's failure to file written objections waives that party's right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to factual finding or legal conclusion the district judge adopts from the Report and Recommendation. See 11th Cir. R. 3- 1; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Should the parties wish to expedite the resolution of this matter, they may promptly file a joint notice of no objection.
cc: Hon. Thomas P. Barber Counsel of Record
3