Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00786/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00786-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANNIE SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

No. 2:13-cv-0786-KJN

ORDER

On February 5, 2016, the undersigned issued an order granting plaintiff’s December 19, 

2016 motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (EFC No. 25), awarding 

plaintiff’s counsel $10,420.72 in attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), directing 

plaintiff’s counsel to promptly pay to plaintiff the sum of $6,425.54 that was previously awarded 

in this action pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), and directing the Clerk of 

Court to close this case. (ECF No. 28.) That order incorrectly directed plaintiff’s counsel to 

promptly pay to plaintiff the sum of $6,425.54 that was previously awarded to plaintiff’s counsel

in this action pursuant to the EAJA (ECF No. 24) based on an erroneous understanding that the 

////

////

////

Case 2:13-cv-00786-KJN Document 29 Filed 02/09/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

total of $10,420.72 in attorneys’ fees requested through plaintiff’s motion included fees already 

awarded under the EAJA and that plaintiff had not assigned the EAJA award to her counsel.1 

Accordingly, the February 5, 2016 order is vacated insofar as it directs plaintiff’s counsel to 

promptly pay to plaintiff the sum of $6,425.54 that was previously awarded to plaintiff’s counsel 

in this action pursuant to the EAJA. All other aspects of that order, however, remain in full 

effect.2

For the reasons stated above, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The court’s February 5, 2016 order awarding plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 406(b) (ECF No. 28) is vacated insofar as it directs plaintiff’s counsel to 

promptly pay to plaintiff the sum of $6,425.54 that was previously awarded to 

plaintiff’s counsel in this action pursuant to the EAJA.

2. All other aspects of court’s February 5, 2016 order, including the award of $10,420.72 

in attorneys’ fees to plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), remain in full 

effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2016

 

1 On February 5, 2016, plaintiff’s counsel contacted the court via telephone to clarify that the 

$10,420.72 in attorneys’ fees sought through plaintiff’s motion was based on a deduction of the 

EAJA fees already awarded from the total sum of attorneys’ fees accrued. Further review of 

plaintiff’s motion demonstrates that plaintiff’s request for $10,420.72 in attorneys’ fees did 

contemplate an offset of the previously-awarded EAJA fees from the sum total of attorneys’ fees 

accrued over the course of this litigation. (See ECF No. 25 at 1.)

2

The court’s analysis in its February 5, 2016 order with regard to the reasonableness of the

$10,420.72 in attorneys’ fees awarded is not impacted by the present order.

Case 2:13-cv-00786-KJN Document 29 Filed 02/09/16 Page 2 of 2