(SS) Baker v. Commissioner of Social Security

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedFebruary 7, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-02372
StatusUnknown

This text of (SS) Baker v. Commissioner of Social Security ((SS) Baker v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
(SS) Baker v. Commissioner of Social Security, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 John Metsker, Esq. SBN 268977 THE METSKER LAW FIRM 2 P.O. Box 590881 3 San Francisco, CA 94159 Phone: 866-342-6180 4 Fax: 415-500-4081 5 jmetsker@metskerlaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff 6

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMIE L. BAKER, No. 2:24-cv-02372-SCR 12 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR 13 v. THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL 14 C SEO CM UM RI IS TS YI ,O NER OF SOCIAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) 15 Defendant. 16

17 18 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through their 19 undersigned counsel, subject to the approval of the Court, that Plaintiff be awarded 20 attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), 21 22 in the amount of ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED THIRTY-FOUR 23 DOLLARS AND SEVENTY-FIVE CENTS ($1,334.75) and no costs under 28 24 U.S.C. § 1920. These amounts represent compensation for all legal services 25 26 rendered and costs incurred on behalf of Plaintiff, to date, by counsel in connection 27 with this civil action, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 2412(d) and 1920. 28 1 After the Court issues an order for EAJA fees and expenses to Plaintiff, the 2 government will consider the matter of Plaintiff’s assignment of EAJA fees and 3 expenses to Plaintiff's attorney. Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), 4 5 the ability to honor the assignment will depend on whether the fees are subject to 6 any offset allowed under the United States Department of the Treasury’s Offset 7 8 Program. After the order for EAJA fees and expenses is entered, the government 9 will determine whether they are subject to any offset. 10 Fees and expenses shall be made payable to Plaintiff, but if the Department 11 12 of the Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, then the 13 government shall cause the payment of fees to be made directly to Plaintiff’s 14 counsel, John D. Metsker, pursuant to the assignment executed by Plaintiff. Any 15 16 payments made shall be paid via electronic funds transfer (EFT) or via check 17 delivered to Plaintiff’s counsel. 18 This stipulation constitutes a compromise settlement of Plaintiff's request for 19 20 EAJA attorney fees and expenses, and does not constitute an admission of liability 21 on the part of Defendant under the EAJA. Payment of the agreed amount shall 22 constitute a complete release from, and bar to, any and all claims that Plaintiff 23 24 and/or Plaintiff's counsel may have relating to EAJA attorney fees and expenses in 25 connection with this action. 26 ///// 27 28 ///// | This award is without prejudice to the rights of Plaintiff's counsel to seek 2 Social Security Act attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406, subject to the offset 3 4 | provisions of the EAJA. 5 6 . Respectfully submitted, 7 8 | Dated: January 31, 2025 /s/ John David Metsker 9 JOHN DAVID METSKER Attorney for Plaintiff 10 1] 12 | Dated: January 31, 2025 /s/ Justin L. Martin* 13 JUSTIN L. MARTIN *As authorized via email on 14 January 31, 2025 15 Special Assistant United States Attorney Office of Program Litigation, Office 7 16 Attorney for Defendant 17 18 ORDER 19 50 Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.

21 DATED: February 6, 2025 / 23 HON. SEAN C. RIORDAN 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28

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

Related

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
(SS) Baker v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ss-baker-v-commissioner-of-social-security-caed-2025.