Soucy v. Bisignano

Docket 5:25-cv-05078

Filed
2025-10-14
Terminated
Not recorded
Case type
cv

Outcome

remanded to U.S. agency

FJC civil IDB DISTRICT=69 OFFICE=5 DOCKET=2505078 FILEDATE=10/14/2025 DISP=11, PROCPROG=1, JUDGMENT=0; codebook: https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/idb/codebooks/Civil%20Codebook%201988%20Forward%2010252023.pdf

Outcome source

Parties and representation

      Party and firm records are not available for this case.

      Panel

        No sourced panel votes are recorded.

        Opinions and documents

        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION JENNIFER A. SOUCY, 5:25-CV-05078-DW Plaintiff, vs. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES LELAND DUDEK, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. Plaintiff Jennifer A. Soucy filed a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412, the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). (Doc. 13). The Defendant does not oppose the request. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 13) is granted. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees in the sum of $9,000 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. It is further ORDERED that under Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S. Ct. 2521, 2528-29 (2010), EAJA fees awarded by the court belong to the Plaintiff and are subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program, 31 U.S.C. § 3716(c)(3)(B) (2006). It is further ORDERED that the EAJA fees shall be paid to Plaintiff Jennifer A. Soucy but delivered to Plaintiff’s attorney, David Goetz, Esquire, Law Office of Gonzales & Goetz, LLC, 2300 NW Corporate Blvd, Suite 244, Boca Raton, Florida, 33327. DATED this 25th day of March, 2025. BY THE COURT: DANETA OCEAN United States Magistrate Judge

        Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.