(SS) Pratt v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California·Decided March 11, 2024·No. 2:23-cv-02361·Unknown

Opinion

PHILLIP A. TALBERT 1 United States Attorney MATHEW W. PILE 2 Associate General Counsel 3 Office of Program Litigation, Office 7 Office of the General Counsel 4 Social Security Administration 5 MARGARET BRANICK-ABILLA Special Assistant United States Attorney 6 6401 Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21235 7 Telephone: (510) 570-4809 8 Email: Margaret.Branick-Abilla@ssa.gov Attorneys for Defendant 9

10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11

12 MICHAEL JAMES PRATT, ) Case No. 2:23-cv-02361-AC ) 13 Plaintiff, ) STIPULATION FOR THE AWARD AND 14 ) PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES vs. ) PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS 15 ) TO JUSTICE ACT , 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ) AND COSTS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 16 ) § 1920; [PROPOSED] ORDER 17 Defendant. ) ) 18 ) ) 19

21 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties, through their undersigned 22 counsel, subject to the approval of the Court, that Plaintiff be awarded attorney fees in the amount 23 of EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS AND ZERO CENTS ($8,000.00) under the Equal Access to 24 Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), and costs in the amount of FOUR HUNDRED AND 25 TWO DOLLARS ($402.00) under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. This amount represents compensation for all 26 legal services rendered on behalf of Plaintiff by counsel in connection with this civil action, in 27 accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920; 2412(d). 28 1 After the Court issues an order for EAJA fees to Plaintiff, the government will consider the 2 matter of Plaintiff’s assignment of EAJA fees to counsel Francesco Benavides (Counsel). 3 Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 598 (2010), the ability to honor the assignment will 4 depend on whether the fees are subject to any offset allowed under the United States Department 5 of the Treasury’s Offset Program. After the order for EAJA fees is entered, the government will 6 determine whether they are subject to any offset. 7 Fees shall be made payable to Plaintiff, but if the Department of the Treasury determines 8 that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, then the government shall cause the payment of fees and 9 costs to be made directly to Counsel, Francesco Benavides, pursuant to the assignment executed 10 by Plaintiff. Any payments made shall be delivered to Counsel. 11 This stipulation constitutes a compromise settlement of Plaintiff’s request for EAJA 12 attorney fees, and does not constitute an admission of liability on the part of Defendant under the 13 EAJA or otherwise. Payment of the agreed amount shall constitute a complete release from, and 14 bar to, any and all claims that Plaintiff and/or Counsel, including Counsel’s law office and any 15 associates, may have relating to EAJA attorney fees in connection with this action. 16 This award is without prejudice to the rights of Counsel to seek Social Security Act 17 attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to the savings clause provisions of the EAJA. 18 Respectfully submitted,

19 Dated: March 7, 2024 LAW OFFICES OF FRANCESCO BENAVIDES 20 By: /s/ Francesco Benavides* 21 FRANCESCO BENAVIDES Attorneys for Plaintiff 22 [*As authorized by e-mail on Mar. 7, 2024] 23 Dated: March 11, 2024 PHILLIP A. TALBERT 24 United States Attorney

25 By: /s/ Margaret Branick-Abilla ___ 26 MARGARET BRANICK-ABILLA Special Assistant United States Attorney 27 Attorneys for Defendant 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER 2 || Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 Dated: March 11, 2024 ~ Ctlhter— Lane ° ALLISONCLAIRE 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ; 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Stipulation; [Proposed] Order 9-92_ey_NI3R26B1_-AC

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

(SS) Pratt v. Commissioner of Social Security, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

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