(SS) Diaz v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California·Decided January 10, 2020·No. 2:18-cv-01225·Unknown

Opinion

McGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX Social Security Administration MARGARET BRANICK-ABILLA, CSBN 223600 Special Assistant United States Attorney 160 Spear Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 977-8929 Facsimile: (415) 744-0134 E-Mail: Margaret.Branick-Abilla@ssa.gov Attorneys for Defendant

JOSE DIAZ, ) No. 2:18-cv-1225-DB ) Plaintiff, ) ) STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE vs. ) AWARD AND PAYMENT OF ) ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO ) THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ANDREW SAUL, ) Commissioner of Social Security,1 ) ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) ) ) Defendant. ) IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties through their undersigned counsel, subject to the approval of the Court, that plaintiff Jose Diaz (Plaintiff) be awarded attorney fees in the amount of SEVEN THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND ZERO CENTS ($7,500.00) under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). 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 Plaintiff, the government will consider the matter of Plaintiff’s assignment of EAJA fees to counsel Jared T. Walker. Pursuant to Astrue 1 Andrew Saul is now the Commissioner of Social Security and is automatically substituted in this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). See also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (action survives regardless of any change in the person occupying the office of Commissioner of Social Security). 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 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 to be made directly to counsel Jared T. Walker, pursuant to the authorization executed by Plaintiff. Any payments made shall be delivered to 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 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 counsel, including but not limited to Jared T. Walker, may have relating to EAJA attorney fees in connection with this action. This award is without prejudice to the rights of counsel to seek Social Security Act attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to the savings clause provisions of the EAJA. Respectfully submitted, Dated: December 31, 2019 LAW OFFICE OF JARED T. WALKER, PC By: /s/ Jared T. Walker* JARED T. WALKER Attorneys for Plaintiff [*As authorized by e-mail on Dec. 31, 2019]

Dated: December 31, 2019 McGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney DEBORAH LEE STACHEL Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX Social Security Administration

By: /s/ Margaret Branick-Abilla MARGARET BRANICK-ABILLA Special Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendant

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.2 DATED: January 9, 2020 /s/ DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2 In light of the parties’ stipulation and this order, plaintiff’s December 18, 2019 motion for attorney’s fees (ECF No. 24) is denied as having been rendered moot.

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

(SS) Diaz v. Commissioner of Social Security, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

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