Bennett v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 RICHARD BENNETT, Case No. C20-5202 TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER 8 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 9 Defendants. 10 11 This matter comes before the Court on petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. 12 Dkt. 24. For the reasons set forth herein, petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is 13 DENIED. 14 BACKGROUND 15 On July 27, 2022, this Court denied plaintiff’s counsel Maren Bam’s (hereinafter, 16 “Petitioner”) motion seeking an order granting her $19,052.93 in attorney’s fees 17 pursuant to § 406(b), to be paid by the Commissioner. Dkt. 23. The Court 18 acknowledged that the Commissioner did not withhold funds sufficient to satisfy the 19 award of Section 406(b) fees, but informed Petitioner that the Court lacks the authority 20 to order the Commissioner to pay fees when it has not withheld sufficient funds. 21 In Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, she states that the Court’s order 22 overlooked the primary object of her motion, which requested an order awarding 23 attorney’s fee to be payable to plaintiff’s attorney. Dkt. 25 at 1. Petitioner points to her 24 1 reply brief in which she requests, as an alternative course, that the Court issue an order 2 granting attorney’s fees and direct the Claimant, Mr. Bennett, to remit payment of 3 $19,052.93 to refund the EAJA to the Claimant. In the instant motion for 4 reconsideration, Petitioner states that she cannot recover attorney fees from the 5 Claimant directly without an order from this Court. Petitioner states that she does not 6 seek to disturb the Court’s order regarding the issue of direct payment from the 7 Commissioner. Dkt. 25 at 2. 8 DISCUSSION 9 Motions for reconsideration are generally disfavored under the Court’s local 10 rules: 11 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior 12 ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence. 13 14 Local Rules W.D. Wash. CR 7(h)(1). Such motions are an “extraordinary remedy,” and 15 “should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is 16 presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an 17 intervening change in the controlling law.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 18 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted). 19 Petitioner requested that the Court direct Mr. Bennett, the claimant, to pay her – 20 and raised this issue for the first time in her reply brief. Dkt. 25 at 2. Ordinarily, the Court 21 will not consider issues raised for the first time in a reply brief. District courts in this 22 Circuit have ruled that “it is improper for a party to raise a new argument in 23 a reply brief[,]” largely because the opposing party may be deprived of an opportunity to 24 1 respond. United States v. Boyce, 148 F.Supp.2d 1069, 1085 (2001). However, a “district 2 court ha[s] discretion to consider [an] issue even if it was raised in a reply brief.” Glenn 3 K. Jackson Inc. v. Roe, 273 F.3d 1192, 1202 (9th Cir. 2001). 4 Petitioner asks the Court to issue an order granting attorney’s fees and direct the 5 claimant, Mr. Bennett, to remit payment of $19,052.93. The Court will not review this 6 issue, because it was raised for the first time in a reply brief. And, petitioner has not 7 pointed to any case law or statutes to indicate this Court is required or authorized to 8 issue such an order. 9 For all of these reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion. 10 Dated this 27th day of September, 2022. 11 12 A 13 Theresa L. Fricke 14 United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24