John vs. Astrue, No. 1:2010cv04029 - Document 48 (N.D. Ill. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Jeffrey Cole on 10/11/2013:Mailed notice(jms, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
John vs. Astrue Doc. 48 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION MICHAEL O. JOHN, Plaintiff, v. 1 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No: 10 C 4029 Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiff, Michael O. John has filed a petition for fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. [#46]. Under the Local Rules, all attorney’s fee petitions are to be accompanied by a joint statement detailing the parties’ attempts to compromise on the issue of attorney’s fees. N.D.Ill. L.R. 54.3(e). There is no such statement attached to plaintiff’s petition. Moreover, a very brief review of the plaintiff’s attorney’s hand-written billings statement reveals that counsel is seeking to recover fees for at least 2.3 hours of time spent as a result of counsel’s failure to follow Judge Conlon’s July 1, 2010 scheduling order. If the plaintiff is found entitled to fees, certainly the government cannot be held responsible for plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to either follow the order or, in the event that counsel had a problem with the schedule, file a motion for an extension of the deadlines set in that order in the three months that passed between the entering of the order and the dismissal of this case for want of prosecution. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983)(“Hours that are not properly billed to one's client also are not properly billed to one's adversary pursuant to statutory 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), we have substituted Carolyn W. Colvin for Michael J. Astrue as the appellee. Dockets.Justia.com authority.”); Prak v. Chater, 908 F.Supp. 555, 557 (N.D.Ill. 1995)(plaintiff not entitled to EAJA fees for motion for extension of time to file summary judgment motion); Kolesar v. Shalala, No. 93 C 3834, 1994 WL 142974 (N.D.Ill. 1994)(fees for extension of time cannot fairly be charged to government). Accordingly, the plaintiff’s petition for fees [#46] is denied without prejudice to filing a motion that complies with the local rules and does not seek recovery for fees that were occasioned by counsel’s own errors. The motion will be due 14 days after the Commissioner’s staff returns to duty. ENTERED: UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATE: 10/11/13
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
