(SS) Ray v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California·Decided September 27, 2019·No. 2:18-cv-00561·Unknown

Opinion

Young Cho Attorney at Law: 189870 Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing 12631 East Imperial Highway, Suite C-115 Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 Tel.: (562) 868-5886 Fax: (562) 868-8868 E-mail: rohlfing.office@rohlfinglaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Carol A. Ray

CAROL A. RAY, ) No. 2:18-cv-00561-DB ) Plaintiff, ) STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR ) THE AWARD AND PAYMENT OF vs. ) ATTORNEY FEES AND EXPENSES ) PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ANDREW SAUL, ) ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. ) § 2412(d) AND COSTS PURSUANT Commissioner of Social Security, ) TO 28 U.S.C. § 1920 ) Defendant. ) ) OF THE DISTRICT COURT: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties through their undersigned counsel, subject to the approval of the Court, that Carol A Ray be awarded attorney fees in the amount of four thousand three hundred dollars ($4,300.00) under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), and costs in the amount of four hundred dollars ($400.00) under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. 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 Carol A Ray, the government will consider the matter of Carol A Ray's assignment of EAJA fees to Young Cho. The retainer agreement containing the assignment is attached as exhibit 1. Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 2529 (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 Carol A Ray, but if the Department of the Treasury determines that Carol A Ray does not owe a federal debt, then the government shall cause the payment of fees, expenses and costs to be made directly to Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, pursuant to the assignment executed by Carol A Ray.1 Any payments made shall be delivered to Young Cho. This stipulation constitutes a compromise settlement of Carol A Ray'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 Carol A Ray and/or Young Cho including Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing may have relating to EAJA attorney fees in connection with this action.

1 The parties do not stipulate whether counsel for the plaintiff has a cognizable lien under federal law against the recovery of EAJA fees that survives the Treasury This award is without prejudice to the rights of Young Cho and/or the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing to seek Social Security Act attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to the savings clause provisions of the EAJA. DATE: September 25, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE D. ROHLFING

/s/ Young Cho BY: __________________ Young Cho Attorney for plaintiff Carol A Ray DATE: September 25, 2019 MCGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney

/s/ Ben A. Porter BEN A. PORTER Special Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendant ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security (Per e-mail authorization)

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 26, 2019 /s/ DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

(SS) Ray v. Commissioner of Social Security, (E.D. Cal. 2019).

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