(SS) Merrill v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California·Decided April 22, 2020·No. 2:18-cv-02270·Unknown

Opinion

LEGAL SERVICES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA HILLARY HANSEN, SBN #287703 LIZA THANTRANON, SBN #276442 515 12th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 551-2150 Fax: (916) 551-2196 E-Mail: hhansen@lsnc.net Attorneys for Plaintiff

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO ) No. 18-cv-02270-AC Plaintiff, ) STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ) ORDER FOR THE AWARD AND v. ) PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES ) ANDREW SAUL, ) ) A EQND U AE LX P AE CN CS EE SS S P TU OR JS UU SA TN ICT E T AO C T TH , E Commissioner Social Security, ) 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 be awarded attorney fees and expenses in the amount of SEVEN THOUSAND dollars ($7,000.00) 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. § 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, if any. 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. 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.

Respectfully submitted April 21, 2020 MCGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney, EDWARD A. OLSEN, Assistant United States Attorney, Special Assistant United States Attorney

By: /s/ Ellinor R. Coder__________ Special Assistant United States Attorney (via email authorization on April 20, 2020) Attorneys for Defendant

LEGAL SERVICES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA By: /s/ Hillary P. Hansen______________ Staff Attorney Attorneys for Plaintiff wOASe 6 □□□ □□ □□□ ENNS MMEUIOCT MV VI

Pursuant to the stipulation, it is so ordered. Dated: April 21, 2020 ~ ttt0n— Lhar—e- UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

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

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