(SS) Canela v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California·Decided January 11, 2023·No. 2:20-cv-02452·Unknown

Opinion

Betty Herrera, Esq. (CSBN 242189) UNITED DISABILITY LAWYERS GROUP 285 N. Hill Avenue, Suite 100 Pasadena, California 91106 Telephone (401) 400-4276 Fax (626) 696-3339 bherrera@uniteddisabilitylawyers.com Attorney for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BEATRICE CANELA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) No. 2:20−cv−2452 DB ) v. ) STIPULATION FOR THE AWARD ) AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ) FEES AND EXPENSES PURSUANT Commissioner of Social Security, ) TO THE EQUALY ACCESS TO ) JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), Defendant. ) AND COSTS PURSUANT TO ) 28 U.S.C. § 1920 AND ORDER

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through their undersigned counsel, subject to the approval of the Court, that BEATRICE CANELA be awarded attorney fees and expenses in the amount of SIX THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($6300.00) under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), and costs in the amount of ZERO dollars 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 BEATRICE CANELA, the government will consider the matter of BEATRICE CANELA assignment of EAJA fees to Betty Herrera. Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 598 (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 BEATRICE CANELA, but if the Department of the Treasury determines that BEATRICE CANELA does not owe a federal debt, then the government shall cause the payment of fees, expenses and costs to be made directly to Betty Herrera, United Disability Lawyers Group, pursuant to the assignment executed by Plaintiff. Any payments made shall be delivered to Betty Herrera. 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 BEATRICE CANELA and/or Betty Herrera including United Disability Lawyers Group may have relating to EAJA attorney fees in connection with this action. This award is without prejudice to the rights of Betty Herrera and/or United Disability Lawyers Group to seek Social Security Act attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to the savings clause provisions of the EAJA.

Dated: 12/19/2022 UNITED DISABILITY By: /s/ Betty Herrera BETTY HERRERA Attorneys for Plaintiff Dated: 12/19/2022 TRACY L. WILKISON United States Attorney

By: /s/ Lisa Goldoftas* Lisa Goldoftas * By email authorization on 12/19/2022 Special Assistant US Attorney Attorneys for Defendant ORDER

Based upon the parties’ Stipulation for the Award and Payment of Equal Access to Justice Act Fees, Costs, and Expenses:

IT IS ORDERED that fees and expenses in the amount of SIX THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($6300) as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and costs in the amount of $0.00 as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1920, be awarded subject to the terms of the Stipulation.

Any payments made shall be delivered to:

Ms. Betty Herrera United Disability Lawyers Group 285 N. Hill Avenue, Suite 100 Pasadena, California 91106

DATED: January 10, 2023 /s/ DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

(SS) Canela v. Commissioner of Social Security, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

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