Tobin v. Strue
Filing
37
ORDER AMENDING JULY 25, 2012 ORDER (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 8/22/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
6
9
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Defendant.
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
ORDER AMENDING JULY 25, 2012
ORDER
Plaintiff,
7
8
No. C 10-02937 SI
CANDI L. TOBIN,
/
11
12
On July 25, 2012, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion for attorneys fees under the Equal Access
13
to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). Docket No. 35. Plaintiff was awarded $10,774.41, representing
14
costs and fees for all work reasonably expended to litigate the merits of her claim, except for 9.25 hours
15
that plaintiff’s counsel spent on plaintiff’s unsuccessful motion to alter or amend the judgment. On
16
August 6, 2012, plaintiff filed what the Court construes as a motion to amend. In that motion, plaintiff
17
notes that in her reply in support of fees plaintiff also asked to be compensated for 8 hours of time spent
18
on her EAJA fee motion, but that request was not addressed in the Court’s order granting her motion
19
for EAJA fees. See Docket No. 36. To date, defendant has not filed a response to plaintiff’s August 6,
20
2012 letter.
21
The Court agrees that plaintiff is entitled to fees for work on her EAJA motion and finds that the
22
8 hours claimed at the statutory rate is reasonable. Therefore, the Court’s July 25, 2012 Order is
23
HEREBY AMENDED and plaintiff is awarded a total of $12,219.13 for fees and costs incurred in this
24
action.
25
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 22, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
© 2024 Justia
