From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Corlis v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Jul 30, 2012
3:11-CV-847-BR (D. Or. Jul. 30, 2012)

Opinion

3:11-CV-847-BR

07-30-2012

TABITHA J. CORLIS, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

KIMBERLY K. TUCKER Hatter-Tucker Law Attorneys for Plaintiff S. AMANDA MARSHALL United States Attorney ADRIAN L. BROWN Assistant United States Attorney DAVID MORADO Regional Chief Counsel MATTHEW W. PILE Special Assistant United States Attorney Social Security Administration Attorneys for Defendant


ORDER

KIMBERLY K. TUCKER

Hatter-Tucker Law

Attorneys for Plaintiff

S. AMANDA MARSHALL

United States Attorney

ADRIAN L. BROWN

Assistant United States Attorney

DAVID MORADO

Regional Chief Counsel

MATTHEW W. PILE

Special Assistant United States Attorney

Social Security Administration

Attorneys for Defendant

BROWN, Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Tabitha J. Corlis's Amended Application (#25) for Attorney Fees in which she seeks $2,050.00 in attorneys' fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and her retroactive Second Motion (#26) for Extension of Time.

On July 25, 2012, Plaintiff filed her Second Motion for Extension of Time in conjunction with her Amended Application for Fees, which was filed five days past the July 20, 2012, deadline the Court set when it granted Plaintiff's prior request for an extension of time. Although the Court finds the explanation for the delay by Plaintiff's counsel to be an unpersuasive excuse, in the exercise of its discretion the Court GRANTS nunc pro tunc Plaintiff's Second Motion (#26) for Extension of Time and deems Plaintiff's Amended Application (#25) to be timely filed.

The Court notes the attorneys' fees sought by Plaintiff's counsel were originally stipulated to by the Commissioner, but the Commissioner now opposes Plaintiff's Amended Petition based on repeated delays by Plaintiff's counsel. Although the Court finds the explanation of Plaintiff's counsel of a computer or software malfunction to be an unlikely explanation for the delays in this matter, the Court, nevertheless, does not find any basis in this record to deprive Plaintiff of the fees that she otherwise earned. Accordingly, in the exercise of its discretion, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Amended Application (#25) for Attorney Fees pursuant to EAJA and awards Plaintiff attorneys' fees in the amount of $2,050.00.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________________

ANNA J. BROWN

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Corlis v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Jul 30, 2012
3:11-CV-847-BR (D. Or. Jul. 30, 2012)
Case details for

Corlis v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:TABITHA J. CORLIS, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Jul 30, 2012

Citations

3:11-CV-847-BR (D. Or. Jul. 30, 2012)