IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 23-cv-03418-CYC

Z.L.,1

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________ Cyrus Y. Chung, United States Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, ECF No. 16, in which the plaintiff seeks $5,968.36 in attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”),

. Because the plaintiff’s request is supported by the law and is unopposed by the defendant, the Court grants the motion. The EAJA provides for an award of attorney’s fees to a prevailing party against the United States unless the Court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or special circumstances would make an award unjust.

(d)(1)(A). The test for substantial justification “is one of reasonableness in law and fact.” Hackett v. Barnhart,

(10th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks omitted). “The government’s ‘position can be justified even if it is not correct.’” Hackett,

(quoting Pierce v.

1 Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LAPR 5.2(b), this order identifies the plaintiff by initials only. Underwood,

, 566 n.2 (1988)). The burden is on the Commissioner to show his position was substantially justified. Hackett,

. In this case, the defendant does not argue that his position was substantially justified or that there are any special circumstances that would make the award unjust. Further, he does not dispute that the plaintiff is the prevailing party, the reasonableness of the time spent by counsel, or the applicable rate. Upon review of the docket, the motion, and the Statement of Professional Services supplied by the plaintiff, the Court finds there is a sufficient basis to grant the motion. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: (1) The plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, ECF No. 16, is GRANTED in the amount of $5,968.36; and (2) If, after receiving this Order, the Commissioner (1) determines that the plaintiff does not owe a debt that is subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program, and (2) agrees to waive the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act, the fees will be made payable to the plaintiffs attorney. However, if the plaintiff owes a debt that is subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program, the Commissioner cannot agree to waive the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act, and the remaining EAJA fees after offset will be paid by a check made out to the plaintiff but delivered to the plaintiffs attorney. SO ORDERED this 25th day of March, 2025, at Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT:

Cyrus Y. Chung United States Magistrate Judge