WARREN
v.
SAUL, 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 granted the plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Plaintiff moved for attorney's fees and costs under the EAJA after her case was remanded. The Commissioner did not oppose the motion and conceded the …
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 Net Worth Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
Jacqueline Warren moves for attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. Section 2412. (Doc. 23). The Commissioner does not oppose the motion. (Id. at 2). Ms. Warren requests $5,595.62 in attorney’s fees. (Id. at 7). The EAJA permits awards for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to a prevailing party against the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2412. An August 19, 2022 order remanded the Commissioner’s final decision under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g) for further administrative proceedings. (Doc. 21). The Clerk entered judgment in Ms. Warren’s favor. (Doc. 22).
The Commissioner does not contest the following: Ms. Warren is the prevailing party; Ms. Warren’s net worth was less than $2 million when she filed her complaint; the Commissioner’s position was not substantially justified; and Ms. Warren’s attorney’s fees request are reasonable. (Doc. 28, pp. 3-7).
A court should grant a Social Security claimant’s request for attorney’s fees when it is unopposed. See Jones v. Colvin, No. 8:13-CV-2900-T-33AEP, 2015 WL 7721334 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2015) (awarding unopposed attorney’s fees request).
Thus, Ms. Warren is entitled to $5,595.62 in attorney’s fees. Attorney’s fees awarded to a claimant under the EAJA can be offset to satisfy the claimant’s pre-existing debt to the United States. Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 589 (2010). Following an order, the United States Department of the Treasury will determine whether Mr. Smith owes a debt to the United States. Ms. Warren assigned her rights to EAJA fees to her attorney. (Doc. 22, Ex. 1). So, if Ms. Warren has no federal debt, the United States will accept her assignment of EAJA fees and pay the fees directly to counsel.
Accordingly, itis ORDERED that Ms. Warren motion for attorney’s fees under the EAJA (Doc. 28) be GRANTED. Ms. Warren is awarded $5,595.62 in attorney’s fees. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on October 26, 2022. Aranda. Arne hh Sanne.
AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE
United States Magistrate Judge