(SS) Nelson v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California·Decided September 15, 2023·No. 1:21-cv-01791·Unknown

Opinion

Melissa Newel (CA 148563) NEWEL LAW 2625 Alcatraz Ave., Suite 132 Berkeley, CA 94705 (510) 316-3827 mnewel@newellawfirm.com Attorney for Plaintiff

PHILLIP A. TALBERT United States Attorney MATHEW W. PILE Associate General Counsel Office of Program Litigation, Office 7 Social Security Administration LARS J. NELSON (MN 0389274) Special Assistant United States Attorney 6401 Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21235 (206) 615-3717 lars.nelson@ssa.gov Attorneys for Defendant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA VICKI COLLEEN NELSON, No. 1:21-CV-01791 (SKO) Plaintiff, v. STIPULATION AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AWARD AND PAYMENT KILOLO KIJAKAZI, OF ATTORNEYS FEES PURSUANT TO ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT SOCIAL SECURITY, (28 U.S.C. §2412(d)) Defendant. (Doc. 28)

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties, through their undersigned attorneys, subject to the approval of the Court, that Vicki Colleen Nelson (“Plaintiff”) be awarded attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. §2412 (d), in the amount of eight thousand six hundred and eighty-one dollars and forty-six cents ($8,681.46). This represents compensation for 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 Plaintiff’s attorney. Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 598 (2010), the ability to honor the assignment will depend on whether the attorney 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 subject to offset, then the government shall cause the payment of fees approved to be made payable to Melissa Newel or Newel Law (collectively “Plaintiff’s counsel”), pursuant to the assignment executed by Plaintiff. Any and all payments made shall be delivered to Plaintiff’s 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 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(b), subject to the savings clause provisions of the EAJA.

Respectfully submitted, Dated: September 14, 2023 NEWEL LAW

By: Melissa Newel Melissa Newel Attorney for Plaintiff

Dated: September 14, 2023 PHILLIP A. TALBERT United States Attorney Associate General Counsel Social Security Administration

By: Lars J. Nelson* (*Authorized by email dated 09/13/2023) Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Attorneys for Defendant

Pursuant to the foregoing Stipulation and Unopposed Motion (Doc. 28), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. §2412(d), attorney fees in the amount of eight thousand six hundred and eighty-one dollars and forty-six cents ($8,681.46) be awarded subject to the terms of the Stipulation. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 15, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

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

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