NEVILLE
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 held that attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act are awardable, but direct payment to counsel cannot be ordered without compliance with the Anti-Assignment Act.
Plaintiff sought attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act after the court reversed and remanded her disability benefits case. The Commiss…
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 Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (Doc. No. 42) FILED: November 30, 2022
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
the case to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Doc. No. 40. On September 23, 2022, judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff and against the Commissioner. Doc. No. 41. By the present motion, filed on November 30, 2022, Plaintiff seeks an award
of attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). Doc. No. 42. Plaintiff requests a total of $6,695.32 in attorney’s fees under the EAJA, for 30.6 hours of work performed by her counsel from 2020 through 2022.
Id. at 1, 4–5. Plaintiff also appears to request that the Court authorize payment of the EAJA award directly to her counsel. Id. at 2; Doc. No. 42-3. The Commissioner does not oppose the motion. Doc. No. 42, at 3. Upon consideration, and absent any objection from the Commissioner, the
Court finds the request for fees pursuant to the EAJA well taken. Accordingly, the motion is due to be granted to the extent that it requests an award of $6,695.32 in attorney’s fees under the EAJA. However, insofar as Plaintiff requests that the
Court honor the assignment of the EAJA award directly to her counsel (Doc. No. 42-3), the motion is due to be denied because Plaintiff has not demonstrated compliance with the Anti-Assignment Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3727(b). See Crumbley v. Colvin, No. 5:13-cv-291 (MTT), 2014 WL 6388569, at *4-5 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 14, 2014); Huntley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 6:12-cv-613-Orl-37TBS, 2013 WL 5970717, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 8, 2013). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Award of Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (Doc. No. 42) is GRANTED in part, to the extent that Plaintiff is awarded a total of $6,695.32 in attorney’s fees under the EAJA. The motion is DENIED in all other respects.” DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on December 5, 2022.
LESLIE NOs AN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties