Hugins v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided December 16, 2024·No. 2:24-cv-00734·Unknown

Opinion

John Metsker, Esq., CA SBN 268977 THE METSKER LAW FIRM P.O. Box 590881 San Francisco, CA 94159 Phone: 866-342-6180 jmetsker@metskerlaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff, Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Tiffany Gayle Doctors, Esq., NV SBN 14363 411 E. Bonneville Ave., Suite 410 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone: 702-382-2030 tgd@weltlaw.com Designated Resident Counsel for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

VALERY D. HUGINS, Case No. 2:24-cv-00734-MDC Plaintiff, AMENDED STIPULATION AND v. [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. Defendant. § 2412(d)

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through their undersigned counsel, subject to the approval of the Court, that Plaintiff be awarded attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), in the amount of FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY THREE DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($4,183.00) and no costs or expenses under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. These amounts represent compensation for all legal services rendered and costs incurred on behalf of Plaintiff, to date, by counsel in connection with this civil action, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 2412(d) and 1920. As evidenced by the attached itemized statement of attorney time, this stipulation represents compensation for 17.1 hours of attorney time compensated at an inflation-adjusted EAJA rate of $244.62 per hour. See https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/attorneys/statutory-maximum-rates/ (calculating inflation-adjusted EAJA rates by year). The parties mutually agree that the stipulated fees represent a reasonable amount of compensation for work performed by the plaintiff’s attorney in this matter. After the Court issues an order for EAJA fees to Plaintiff, the government will consider the matter of Plaintiff’s assignment of EAJA fees and expenses to Plaintiff's attorney. Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), the ability to honor the assignment will depend on whether the fees, expenses are subject to any offset allowed under the United States Department of the Treasury’s Offset Program. After the order for EAJA fees and expenses is entered, the government will determine whether they are subject to any offset. Fees and expenses shall be made payable to Plaintiff, but if the Department of the Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, then the government shall cause the payment of fees to be made directly to John D. Metsker, pursuant to the assignment executed by Plaintiff. Any payments made shall be delivered to Plaintiff’s counsel. This stipulation constitutes a compromise settlement of Plaintiff's request for EAJA attorney fees and expenses, and does not constitute an admission of liability on the part of Defendant under the EAJA. Payment of the agreed amount shall constitute a complete release from, and bar to, any and all claims that Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's counsel may have relating to EAJA attorney fees, costs and expenses in connection with this action. This award is without prejudice to the rights of Plaintiff's counsel to seek Social Security Act attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406, subject to the offset provisions of the EAJA. In accordance with Supreme Court’s stated preference for stipulated outcomes in fee shifting cases, the undersigned counsel for the parties respectfully request that the stipulated amount be approved as a reasonable fee in this matter. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983) (“A request for attorney's fees should not result in a second major litigation. Ideally, of course, litigants will settle the amount of a fee.”) Respectfully submitted, Dated: December 12, 2024 /s/ John David Metsker JOHN DAVID METSKER Attorney for Plaintiff Dated: December 12, 2024 /s/ Michael J. Mullen* MICHAEL J. MULLEN *As authorized via email on December 12, 2024 Special Assistant United States Attorney Attorney for Defendant ORDER : The Court finds the stipulated fees are reasonable per 28 USC 2412(b) and therefore, the Stipulation is GRANTED. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED. DATE: 12-16- 24 ________________________________ MAXIMILIANO D. COUVILLIER, III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, am a citizen of the United States and am at least eighteen years of age. My business address is P.O. Box 590881, San Francisco, CA 94159. I am not a party to the above-entitled action. On the date set forth below, I caused service of AMENDED STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) upon the following individuals via CM/ECF:

Blaine T Welsh blaine.welsh@usdoj.gov, CaseView.ECF@usdoj.gov, Danielle.Bleecker@usdoj.gov, allyson.beyer@usdoj.gov, angelina.villalpando@usdoj.gov, dionne.white@usdoj.gov, liam.pisan@usdoj.gov, maria.covarrubias@usdoj.gov, maritess.recinto@usdoj.gov, vera.minkova@usdoj.gov Tiffany Gayle Doctors tgd@weltlaw.com Michael James Mullen michael.j.mullen@ssa.gov, ogc.dinv@ssa.gov

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: December 12, 2024. /s/ John David Metsker JOHN DAVID METSKER Attorney for Plaintiff

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hugins v. Commissioner of Social Security, (D. Nev. 2024).

Hugins v. Commissioner of Social Security (Hugins v. Commissioner of Social Security) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hensley v. Eckerhart
461 U.S. 424 (Supreme Court, 1983)
Astrue v. Ratliff
560 U.S. 586 (Supreme Court, 2010)