(SS) Corrales v. Commissioner Social Security

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 9, 20241:20-cv-01646California2,059 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. INTRODUCTION

17 On December 19, 2023, Plaintiff’s attorney filed a motion for an award of attorney fees for 18 past-due benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1383(d)(2)(B) in the amount of $20,256.00. (Doc. 21). 19 On December 20, 2023, the Court issued a minute order requiring Plaintiff and the Acting 20 Commissioner to file a response in opposition or statement of non-opposition to Counsel's motion, 21 if any, by no later than January 12, 2024. (Doc. 22). The Government filed a motion of non- 22 opposition (Doc. 24) on January 2, 2024, and the motion is deemed unopposed. For the reasons 23 set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion for fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1383(d)(2)(B) is granted.

25

1 On December 20, 2023, Martin O’Malley was named Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. See https://www.ssa.gov/history/commissioners.html. He is therefore substituted as the defendant in this action. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (referring to the “Commissioner’s Answer”); 20 C.F.R. § 422.210(d) (“the person holding the Office II. BACKGROUND Plaintiff brought the underlying action seeking judicial review of a final…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.