(SS) Sandoval Montano v. Commissioner of Social Security
This text of (SS) Sandoval Montano v. Commissioner of Social Security ((SS) Sandoval Montano v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 Jonathan O. Peña, Esq. 2 CA Bar ID No.: 278044 Peña & Bromberg, PLC 3 3467 W. Shaw Ave., Ste 100 4 Fresno, CA 93711 Telephone: 559-439-9700 5 Facsimile: 559-439-9723 6 Email: info@jonathanpena.com Attorney for Plaintiff, Patricia Montano 7
8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION 11 12 PATRICIA MONTANO, Case No. 2:24-cv-02032-JDP
13 Plaintiff, STIPULATION FOR THE AWARD 14 AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY v. FEES AND EXPENSES PURSUANT 15 TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO 16 CAROLYN COLVIN1, ACTING JUSTICE ACT; |PROPOSED| ORDER COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 17 SECURITY, 18 Defendant. 19 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through their 20 undersigned counsel, subject to the approval of the Court, that Plaintiff be awarded 21 attorney fees and expenses in the amount of NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY-EIGHT 22 48/100 ($978.48) under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), 23 and costs in the amount of FOUR HUNDRED AND FIVE dollars ($ 405.00) under 28 24 25 1 Carolyn Colvin became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on 26 November 30, 2024. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Carolyn Colvin should be substituted for Martin O’Malley as the defendant in this suit. 27 No further action need be taken to continue this suit by reason of the last sentence of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 1 U.S.C. §1920. This amount represents compensation for all legal services rendered on 2 behalf of Plaintiff by counsel in connection with this civil action, in accordance with 28 3 U.S.C. §§ 1920, 2412(d). 4 Plaintiff was the prevailing party in this matter and Plaintiff is an individual 5 whose net worth does not exceed $2,000,000 at the time the civil action was filed. The 6 position of the Commissioner was not substantially justified and an award of fees is not 7 unjust. 8 After the Court issues an order for EAJA fees to Plaintiff, the government will 9 consider the matter of Plaintiff’s assignment of EAJA fees to Plaintiff’s attorney. 10 Under Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S. Ct. 2521, 2528-29 (2010), EAJA fees awarded by this 11 Court belong to the Plaintiff and are subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program 12 (31 U.S.C. § 3716(c)(3)(B) (2006)). Any EAJA fees should therefore be awarded to 13 Plaintiff and not to Plaintiff’s attorney. If, after receiving the Court’s EAJA fee order, 14 the Commissioner (1) determines that Plaintiff has assigned his right to EAJA fees to 15 16 his attorney; (2) determines that Plaintiff does not owe a debt that is subject to offset 17 under the Treasury Offset Program, and (3) agrees to waive the requirements of the 18 Anti-Assignment Act, then the EAJA fees will be made payable to Plaintiff’s attorney. 19 However, if there is a debt owed under the Treasury Offset Program, the Commissioner 20 cannot agree to waive the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act, and the remaining 21 EAJA fees after offset will be paid by a check or electronic fund transfer (EFT) made 22 out to Plaintiff, but delivered to Plaintiff’s attorney. 23 This stipulation constitutes a compromise settlement of Plaintiff’s request for 24 EAJA attorney fees, and does not constitute an admission of liability on the part of 25 Defendant under the EAJA or otherwise. Payment of the agreed amount shall constitute 26 a complete release from, and bar to, any and all claims that Plaintiff and/or Counsel 27 1 including Counsel’s firm may have relating to EAJA attorney fees in connection with 2 this action. 3 The parties further agree that the EAJA award is without prejudice to the right of 4 Plaintiff’s attorney to seek attorney fees pursuant to Social Security Act § 206(b), 42 5 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to the offset provisions of the EAJA. See 28 U.S.C. § 6 2412(c)(1) (2006). 7 Respectfully submitted, 8 9 Dated: December 13, 2024 /s/ Jonathan O. Peña 10 J ONATHAN O. PEÑA 11 Attorney for Plaintiff
12 Dated: December 16, 2024 PHILLIP A. TALBERT 13 United States Attorney 14 MATHEW W. PILE Associate General Counsel 15 Office of Program Litigation 16 Social Security Administration
17 By: _*_Justin Lane Martin 18 Justin Lane Martin Special Assistant U.S. Attorney 19 Attorneys for Defendant 20 (*Permission to use electronic signature obtained via email on December 16, 2024). 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 {PROPOSED! ORDER 2 3 Based upon the parties’ Stipulation for the Award and Payment of Equal Access 4 || to Justice Act Fees and Expenses (the “Stipulation’”), IT IS ORDERED that fees and expenses in the amount of NINE HUNDRED
7 || SEVENTY-EIGHT 48/100 ($978.48) as authorized by the Equal Access to Justice Act 8 || (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), be awarded subject to the terms of the Stipulation. 9 10 | Ir IS SO ORDERED. 11 / 12 | Dated: _ December 16, 2024 gyn Wis JEREMY D. PETERSON 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -A-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
(SS) Sandoval Montano v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ss-sandoval-montano-v-commissioner-of-social-security-caed-2024.