Paul Brian Houston v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. California·Decided March 20, 2026·No. 3:25-cv-09642·Unknown

Opinion

Paul Sachelari, CSBN 230083 Law Office of Paul Sachelari, PC 6114 La Salle Ave, #412 Oakland, CA 94611 Tel/Fax: (510) 788-5540 Email: paul@sachelarilaw.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL BRIAN HOUSTON, Civil No. 25-cv-09642-TSH Plaintiff, STIPULATION FOR THE AWARD AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES AND vs. EXPENSES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT; [PROPOSED] Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. 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 and expenses in the amount of $10,000.00, under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), and no costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. This amount represents compensation for all legal services rendered on behalf of Plaintiff by counsel in connection with this civil action, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 2412(d), 1920. After the Court issues an order for EAJA fees to Plaintiff, the government will consider the matter of Plaintiff’s assignment of EAJA fees to counsel. Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 598, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 177 L.Ed.2d 91 (2010), the ability to honor the assignment will depend on whether the fees are subject to any offset allowed under the United States Department of the Treasury’s Offset Program. After the order for EAJA fees is entered, the government will determine whether they are subject to any offset. Fees 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, expenses and costs to be made directly to Plaintiff’s counsel, Paul Sachelari, pursuant to the assignment executed by Plaintiff. Payments may be made by electronic funds transfer (EFT) or by check. This stipulation constitutes a compromise settlement of Plaintiff’s request for EAJA attorney fees and does not constitute an admission of liability on the part of Defendant under the EAJA or otherwise. Payment of the agreed amount shall constitute a complete release from, and bar to, any and all claims that Plaintiff and/or Paul Sachelari, including the Law Office of Paul Sachelari, may have relating to EAJA attorney fees in connection with this action. This award is without prejudice to the rights of Paul Sachelari to seek Social Security Act attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to the savings clause provisions of the Respectfully submitted, Dated: March 20, 2026 Law Office of Paul Sachelari, PC By: /s/ Paul Sachelari PAUL SACHELARI Attorney for Plaintiff

Dated: March 20, 2026 CRAIG H. MISSAKIAN United States Attorney

By: Michael K. Marriott* Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Attorneys for Defendant (*Permission to use electronic signature obtained via email on March 20, 2026).1 1 In accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I, Paul Sachelari, attest that I have obtained concurrence in the filing of this document from all other signatories listed here FPROPCSED} ORDER Based upon the parties’ Stipulation for the Award and Payment of Equal Access to Justice Act Fees and Expenses, IT IS ORDERED that fees and expenses in the amount of $10,000.00 as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and no costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, be awarded subject to the terms of the Stipulation.

DATE: March 20, 2026 □□ LT \ Lj-~— HON. THOMAS S. HIXSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Stipulation for EAJA Fees Page 3 Case No. 25-cv-09642-TSH

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

Paul Brian Houston v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, (N.D. Cal. 2026).

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

Related

Astrue v. Ratliff
560 U.S. 586 (Supreme Court, 2010)
Renner v. President of the Bank of Columbia
9 U.S. 581 (Supreme Court, 1824)