Sanchez v. Kijakazi

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided March 16, 2023·No. 2:22-cv-00936·Unknown

Opinion

Marc V. Kalagian Attorney at Law: 4460 Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, Inc., CPC 12631 East Imperial Highway Suite C-115 Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 Tel.: (562) 868-5886 Fax: (562) 868-8868 E-mail: marc.kalagian@rksslaw.com Leonard Stone Attorney at Law: 5791 Shook & Stone 710 South 4th Street Las Vegas, NV 89101 Tel.: (702) 385-2220 Fax: (702) 384-0394 E-mail: CBrown@shookandstone.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Victor F. Sanchez VICTOR F. SANCHEZ, ) Case No.: 2:22-cv-00936-VCF ) Plaintiff, ) STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ) ORDER FOR THE AWARD AND vs. ) PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES ) AND EXPENSES PURSUANT TO KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ) THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE Acting Commissioner of Social ) ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) AND Security, ) COSTS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § ) 1920 Defendant. ) ) THE DISTRICT COURT: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties through their undersigned counsel, subject to the approval of the Court, that Victor F. Sanchez be awarded attorney fees in the amount of five thousand eight hundred dollars ($5,800.00) under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), and costs in the amount of zero dollars ($0.00) 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. §§ 1920; 2412(d). After the Court issues an order for EAJA fees to Sanchez, the government will consider the matter of Sanchez's assignment of EAJA fees to Marc Kalagian. The retainer agreement containing the assignment is attached as exhibit 1. Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 2529 (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 Sanchez, but if the Department of the Treasury determines that Sanchez does not owe a federal debt, then the government shall cause the payment of fees, expenses and costs to be made directly to Law Offices of Rohlfing & Kalagian, pursuant to the assignment

executed by Sanchez.1 Any payments made shall be delivered to Marc Kalagian. This stipulation constitutes a compromise settlement of Sanchez'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 Sanchez 1 The parties do not stipulate whether counsel for the plaintiff has a cognizable lien under federal law against the recovery of EAJA fees that survives the Treasury and/or Marc Kalagian including Law Offices of Rohlfing & Kalagian may have relating to EAJA attorney fees in connection with this action. This award is without prejudice to the rights of Marc Kalagian and/or the Law Offices of Rohlfing & Kalagian to seek Social Security Act attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to the savings clause provisions of the EAJA. DATE: March 15, 2023 Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF ROHLFING & KALAGIAN, LLP □□□ MareV. Kalagian BY: Marc V. Kalagian Attorney for plaintiff DATE: March 15, 2023 JASON M. FRIERSON United States Attorney

Special Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendant KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security (Per e-mail authorization) OF COUNSEL: Julie A.K. Cummings Attorney Office of Program Litigation, Office 7 Social Security Administration Approved and so ordered: DATE: 9-10-2025 5 Bs é < THE HONORABLE CAM FERENBACH

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

Sanchez v. Kijakazi, (D. Nev. 2023).

Sanchez v. Kijakazi (Sanchez v. Kijakazi) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Astrue v. Ratliff
560 U.S. 586 (Supreme Court, 2010)