(SS) Lenox v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California·Decided May 20, 2021·No. 2:19-cv-01195·Unknown

Opinion

SHELLIE LOTT, SBN: 246202 Cerney Kreuze & Lott, LLP 42 N. Sutter Street, Suite 400 Stockton, California 95202 Telephone: (209) 948-9384 Facsimile: (209) 948-0706

Attorney for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT RONDA LEE LENOX, Case No.: 2:19-cv-01195-DMC Plaintiff, STIPULATION FOR THE AWARD OF vs. ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 ANDREW SAUL, U.S.C. § 2412(d) 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 under the EAJA in the amount of TWO-THOUSAND, NINE-HUNDRED TWO dollars and TEN cents ($2,902.10). This amount represents compensation for all legal services rendered on behalf of Plaintiff, to date, by counsel in connection with this civil action, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2412. After the Court issues an order for EAJA fees and expenses to Plaintiff, the government will consider the matter of Plaintiff's assignment of EAJA fees and expenses to Plaintiff's attorney. Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010), the ability to honor the assignment will depend on whether the fees and expenses are subject to any offset allowed under the United States Department of the Treasury's Offset Program. After the order for EAJA fees and expenses is entered, the government will determine whether they are subject to any offset. Fees and expenses 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 Shellie Lott, pursuant to the

assignment executed by Plaintiff. Any payments made shall be delivered to Plaintiff's counsel. This stipulation constitutes a compromise settlement of Plaintiff's request for EAJA attorney fees and expenses, and does not constitute an admission of liability on the part of Defendant under the 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, subject to the offset provisions of the EAJA. Respectfully submitted,

Dated: May 19, 2021 /s/ Shellie Lott Attorney for Plaintiff McGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX Date: May 19, 2021 /s/ Oscar Gonzalez (As authorized via email on 5/14/21) Assistant Regional Counsel SHELLIE LOTT, SBN: 246202 Cerney Kreuze & Lott, LLP ! 42 N. Sutter Street, Suite 400 Stockton, California 95202 Telephone: (209) 948-9384 Facsimile: (209) 948-0706 Attorney for Plaintiff g EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RONDA LEE LENOX, Case No.: 2:19-cv-01195-DMC Lo. Plaintiff, vs ORDER FOR THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO THE ANDREW SAUL, roe sa TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 Acting Commissioner of Social Security, S.C. § (d) Defendant Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that attorney fees ) under EAJA, in the amount of TWO-THOUSAND, NINE-HUNDRED TWO dollars and TEN cents ($2,902.10), are awarded to Plaintiff, subject to the terms of the stipulation. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 19, 2021 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(pD) 2:19-cv-01195-DMC PAGE 3

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

(SS) Lenox v. Commissioner of Social Security, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

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