(SS) Alvarez v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California·Decided March 1, 2022·No. 1:20-cv-01390·Unknown

Opinion

Melissa Newel (#148563) NEWEL LAW 2625 Alcatraz Ave., Suite 132 Berkeley, CA 94705 (510) 316-3827 mnewel@newellawfirm.com Attorney for Plaintiff

PHILLIP A. TALBERT United States Attorney PETE THOMPSON Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX CASPAR CHAN Social Security Administration Assistant United States Attorney 160 Spear Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94105 (510) 970-4810 caspar.chan@ssa.gov Attorneys for Defendant EDWARD SOTO ALVAREZ, No. 1:20-CV-01390-BAK (BAM) Plaintiff,

v. AMENDED STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR AWARD AND PAYMENT OF KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ATTORNEYS FEES PURSUANT TO THE ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (28 SOCIAL SECURITY, U.S.C. §2412(d)) Defendant.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties, through their undersigned attorneys, subject to the approval of the Court, that Edward Soto Alvarez (“Plaintiff”) be awarded attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. §2412 (d), in the amount of seven thousand eighty-eight dollars and thirty-three cents ($7,088.33). This represents compensation for legal services rendered on behalf of Plaintiff by counsel in connection with this civil action, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §2412 (d). 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 Plaintiff’s attorney. Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 598 (2010), the ability to honor the assignment will depend on whether the attorney 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 subject to offset, then the government shall cause the payment of fees approved to be made payable to Melissa Newel or Newel Law (collectively “Plaintiff’s counsel”), pursuant to the assignment executed by Plaintiff. Any and all payments made shall be delivered to Plaintiff’s counsel. 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 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 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(b), subject to the provisions of the EAJA.

Respectfully submitted, Dated: February 22, 2022 NEWEL LAW

By: Melissa Newel Melissa Newel Attorney for Plaintiff

Dated: February 22, 2022 PHILLIP A. TALBERT United States Attorney Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX Social Security Administration

By: Caspar Chan* (*Authorized by email dated 02/22/2022) Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Attorneys for Defendant

/// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// ///

Based upon the parties’ Stipulation for the Award and Payment of Equal Access to Justice Act Fees and Expenses (the “Stipulation”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) filed on February 24, 2022 (Doc. No. 28.): IT IS ORDERED that fees and expenses in the amount of SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHTY-EIGHT DOLLARS AND THIRTY-THREE CENTS ($7,088.33) as authorized by the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) be awarded subject to the terms of the Stipulation.

Dated: March 1, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

(SS) Alvarez v. Commissioner of Social Security, (E.D. Cal. 2022).

(SS) Alvarez v. Commissioner of Social Security ((SS) Alvarez v. 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)