(SS) Grom v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California·Decided August 24, 2020·No. 1:18-cv-01361·Unknown

Opinion

McGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney DEBORAH LEE STACHEL, CSBN 230138 Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX Social Security Administration ELLINOR R. CODER, CSBN 258258 Special Assistant United States Attorney 160 Spear Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 977-8955 Facsimile: (415) 744-0134 E-Mail: Ellinor.Coder@ssa.gov Attorneys for Defendant

FRESNO DIVISION

) Case No.: 1:18-cv-01361-SKO DAVID GROM, ) ) STIPULATION FOR THE AWARD AND Plaintiff, ) PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES AND ) EXPENSES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL vs. ) ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT; ORDER Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) ) Defendant. ) ) IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through their undersigned counsel, subject to the approval of the Court, that Plaintiff be awarded attorney fees and expenses in the amount of five-thousand, one hundred and forty-five dollars and sixty-nine cents ($5,145.69) 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 Plaintiff’s Counsel. Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 598, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 177 L.Ed.2d 91 (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, expenses and costs to be made directly to Counsel, pursuant to the assignment executed by Plaintiff (Dkt. 25-3 at 3-5). 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 Counsel’s firm may have relating to EAJA attorney fees in connection with this action. This award is without prejudice to the rights of Counsel and/or Counsel’s firm 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: August 21, 2020 By: /s/ Kelsey Mackenzie Brown* KELSEY MACKENZIE BROWN * By email authorization on August 21, 2020 Attorneys for Plaintiff

Dated: August 21, 2020 McGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney DEBORAH LEE STACHEL Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX Social Security Administration By: /s/ Ellinor R. Coder ELLINOR R. CODER Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

Attorneys for Defendant

ORDER

Based upon the parties’ above stipulation, for good cause shown, attorney’s fees in the amount of five thousand one hundred and forty-five dollars and sixty-nine cents ($5,145.69) under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) shall be awarded to Plaintiff subject to the terms of the stipulation. In light of this stipulation, Plaintiff’s “Motion for Attorneys Fees and Expenses Under the Equal Access to Justice Act,” (Doc. 25), is denied as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. Sheila K. Oberto Dated: August 24, 2020 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

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

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