(SS) Rios v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California·Decided October 29, 2024·No. 1:24-cv-00424·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 MICHEAL ANTHONY RIOS, No. 1:24-cv-00424-EPG 13 Plaintiff,

14 v. STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR AWARD AND PAYMENT OF 15 MARTIN O’MALLEY, ATTORNEYS FEES PURSUANT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT 16 SOCIAL SECURITY,

17 Defendant. 18 19

22 23 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties, through their undersigned 24 attorneys, subject to the approval of the Court, that Micheal Anthony Rios (Plaintiff) be awarded 25 attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), in the amount 26 of seven thousand nine hundred and one dollars and twenty-three cents ($7,901.23). This 27 represents compensation for legal services rendered on behalf of Plaintiff by counsel in 28 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 1 the matter of Plaintiff’s assignment of EAJA fees to Plaintiff’s attorney. Pursuant to Astrue v. 2 Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 598 (2010), the ability to honor the assignment will depend on whether the 3 attorney fees are subject to any offset allowed under the United States Department of the 4 Treasury’s Offset Program. After the Order for EAJA fees is entered, the government will 5 determine whether they are subject to any offset. 6 Fees shall be made payable to Plaintiff, but if the Department of the Treasury determines 7 that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt subject to offset, then the government shall cause the 8 payment of fees approved to be made payable to Melissa Newel or Newel Law (collectively 9 “Plaintiff’s counsel”), pursuant to the assignment executed by Plaintiff. Any and all payments 10 made shall be delivered to Plaintiff’s counsel via electronic transfer. 11 This stipulation constitutes a compromise settlement of Plaintiff’s request for EAJA 12 attorney fees and costs and does not constitute an admission of liability on the part of Defendant 13 under EAJA. Payment of the agreed amount shall constitute a complete release from, and bar to, 14 any and all claims that Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel may have relating to EAJA attorney 15 fees and expenses in connection with this action. 16 This award is without prejudice to the rights of Plaintiff’s counsel to seek Social Security 17 Act attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to the provisions of the EAJA. 18 Respectfully submitted, 19 Dated: October 25, 2024 NEWEL LAW 20 21 By: Melissa Newel Melissa Newel 22 Attorney for Plaintiff 23 MICHEAL ANTHONY RIOS

24 Dated: October 25, 2024 PHILLIP A. TALBERT United States Attorney 25 MATHEW W. PILE 26 Associate General Counsel Office of Program Litigation, Office 7 27 Social Security Administration

28 By: Margaret Branick-Abilla* MARGARET BRANICK-ABILLA (*Authorized by email dated 10/24/2024 1 Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Attorneys for Defendant 2

7 8

10 11

27 28 1 ORDER 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412, attorney fees in the 3 | amount of seven thousand nine hundred and one dollars and twenty-three cents ($7,901.23) be 4 | awarded subject to the terms of the Stipulation. 5 6 | If IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ October 29, 2024 [JEP hoy — 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

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

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