Vojak v. Commissioner of Social Security
Vojak v. Commissioner of Social Security
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Ronald J. V., Case No. 22-cv-02140 (TNL) Plaintiff, ORDER v. Marten O’Malley, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
Jyotsna Asha Sharma, Disability Partners, PLLC, 2579 Hamline Avenue North, Suite C, Roseville, MN 55113 (for Plaintiff); and Ana H. Voss, United States Attorney, United States Attorney’s Office, 300 South 4th Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415; James D. Sides and Linda H. Green, Special Assistant United States Attorneys, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235 (for Defendant).
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Ronald J. V.’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, ECF No. 26, regarding fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).
Plaintiff requested an award of $8,407.25 in attorney fees and $19.71 in expenses.
See ECF No. 26 at 1. The Court ordered Defendant Marten O’Malley to respond to Plaintiff’s request. See ECF No. 29. Defendant’s response provides that the parties have agreed to settle Plaintiff’s EAJA request for $7,986.89. See ECF No. 30 at 1. The parties acknowledge that under Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), any award belongs to the plaintiff (and not counsel) and that such an award “can be offset to satisfy pre-existing debt that [the p]laintiff owes the United States.” Id. at 1-2. Accordingly, pursuant to the parties’ agreement, the Court awards $7,986.89 in fees and costs under the EAJA.
Based on the foregoing, and all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, ECF No. 26, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion is granted in part as follows: a. Plaintiff is awarded $7,986.89 in fees and costs under the EAJA, subject to offset by any preexisting debt that Plaintiff owes to the United States.
b. Any EAJA fees shall be paid to Plaintiff as the litigant pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010).
3. Plaintiff’s Motion is otherwise denied.
Date: January 19, 2024 s/ Tony N. Leung Tony N. Leung United States Magistrate Judge District of Minnesota
Ronald J. V. v. O’Malley Case No. 22-cv-02140 (TNL)
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Ronald J. V., Case No. 22-cv-02140 (TNL) Plaintiff, ORDER v. Marten O’Malley, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
Jyotsna Asha Sharma, Disability Partners, PLLC, 2579 Hamline Avenue North, Suite C, Roseville, MN 55113 (for Plaintiff); and Ana H. Voss, United States Attorney, United States Attorney’s Office, 300 South 4th Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415; James D. Sides and Linda H. Green, Special Assistant United States Attorneys, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235 (for Defendant).
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Ronald J. V.’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, ECF No. 26, regarding fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).
Plaintiff requested an award of $8,407.25 in attorney fees and $19.71 in expenses.
See ECF No. 26 at 1. The Court ordered Defendant Marten O’Malley to respond to Plaintiff’s request. See ECF No. 29. Defendant’s response provides that the parties have agreed to settle Plaintiff’s EAJA request for $7,986.89. See ECF No. 30 at 1. The parties acknowledge that under Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), any award belongs to the plaintiff (and not counsel) and that such an award “can be offset to satisfy pre-existing debt that [the p]laintiff owes the United States.” Id. at 1-2. Accordingly, pursuant to the parties’ agreement, the Court awards $7,986.89 in fees and costs under the EAJA.
Based on the foregoing, and all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, ECF No. 26, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion is granted in part as follows: a. Plaintiff is awarded $7,986.89 in fees and costs under the EAJA, subject to offset by any preexisting debt that Plaintiff owes to the United States.
b. Any EAJA fees shall be paid to Plaintiff as the litigant pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010).
3. Plaintiff’s Motion is otherwise denied.
Date: January 19, 2024 s/ Tony N. Leung Tony N. Leung United States Magistrate Judge District of Minnesota
Ronald J. V. v. O’Malley Case No. 22-cv-02140 (TNL)
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.