Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01813/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01813-1/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 (SSID)

---

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

 Plaintiff originally also sought reimbursement of her filing fee under 28 U.S.C. §

1920. On reply, she acknowledges that was error and withdraws her request for expenses.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Pamela Ann Beck, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 11-01813-PHX-FJM

ORDER

We have before us plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses (doc. 17),

defendant's response (doc. 18), and plaintiff's reply (doc. 19).

On April 20, 2012, the Clerk entered judgment reversing the Commissioner's order

denying plaintiff disability benefits and remanding for further proceedings (doc. 16).

Plaintiff moved for an award of attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act

("EAJA") on July 20, 2012.1

 A motion requesting attorneys' fees under the EAJA must be

filed within thirty days of final judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B). Plaintiff

acknowledges that her motion was filed one day late due to a calendaring error in her

lawyer's office. She asks that we apply the doctrine of equitable tolling and treat her motion

as timely-filed.

Case 2:11-cv-01813-FJM Document 20 Filed 08/24/12 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 -

It is unclear whether equitable tolling is available for EAJA motions for attorneys'

fees. See Scarborough v. Principi, 541 U.S. 401, 421 n.8, 124 S. Ct. 1856, 1869 n.8 (2004).

We need not decide that question today, because even if equitable tolling is available,

plaintiff has not shown that it should be applied in her case. Plaintiff urges us to focus on the

fact that the motion was filed only one day late, arguing there would be no prejudice to

defendant in accepting the late filing. But when equitable tolling applies, its principles "do

not extend to. . . garden variety claim[s] of excusable neglect." Irwin v. Dep't of Veterans

Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96, 111 S. Ct. 453, 458 (1990). Courts are reluctant to receive late

filings "where the claimant failed to exercise due diligence in preserving his legal rights," and

grant relief "only sparingly." Id. at 96, 111 S. Ct. at 457-58. The only reason plaintiff offers

for her late filing is her lawyer's calendaring error. A review of her lawyer's itemization of

fees, however, reveals that work on the motion for EAJA fees did not commence until July

20, 2012, one day after the deadline for filing the motion. These facts do not show that

plaintiff (or more appropriately, her lawyer) exercised due diligence in meeting the filing

deadline. Accordingly, even if equitable tolling is available, it is not applicable in this case.

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses

(doc. 17).

DATED this 23rd day of August, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01813-FJM Document 20 Filed 08/24/12 Page 2 of 2