(SS) Stancy v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California·Decided December 8, 2023·No. 2:23-cv-00604·Unknown

Opinion

PHILLIP A. TALBERT United States Attorney MATHEW W. PILE, SBN CA 32245 Associate General Counsel Office of Program Litigation, Office 7 Social Security Administration MARCELO ILLARMO (MABN 670079) Special Assistant United States Attorney Social Security Administration 6401 Security Boulevard Baltimore, Maryland 21235 Telephone: (510) 970-4822 E-Mail: Marcelo.Illarmo@ssa.gov Attorneys for Defendant UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JENNETTE LYNN STANCY, ) CIVIL NO. 2:23-cv-00604-TLN-DMC ) Plaintiff, ) STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR v. ) AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES UNDER ) THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ) ACT (EAJA) Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through their undersigned counsel, subject to the approval of the Court, that Plaintiff shall be awarded attorney’s fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. sec. 2412(d), in the amount of five thousand dollars ($7,500.00) and costs in the amount of four hundred two dollars ($402.00) 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 Plaintiff, the government will consider the matter of any assignment of EAJA fees by Plaintiff to her counsel Melissa Markos Nyman, (Counsel). Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 598, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 177 L.Ed.2d 91 (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 Plaintiff, but if the Department of the Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, then the government shall cause the payment of fees, expenses and costs to be made directly to Counsel pursuant to an assignment executed by Plaintiff. Any payments made shall be delivered to 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 the EAJA or otherwise. Payment of the agreed amount shall constitute a complete release from, and bar to, any and all claims that Plaintiff and/or Counsel, including his firm, may have relating to EAJA attorney fees in connection with this action. This award is without prejudice to the rights of Counsel to seek Social Security Act attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to the savings clause provisions of the EAJA .

Dated: December 7, 2023 /s/ Melissa Markos Nyman* Attorney for Plaintiff *Authorized via e-mail on 12/6/23 PHILLIP A. TALBERT United States Attorney MATHEW W. PILE Associate General Counsel Social Security Administration

By: /s/ Marcelo Illarmo MARCELO ILLARMO Special Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for Defendant

Based upon the parties’ Stipulation for the Award and Payment of Equal Access to Justice Act Fees, Costs, and Expenses, IT IS ORDERED that fees and expenses in the amount of $ 7,500.00 as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and costs in the amount of $402.00 as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1920, be awarded subject to the terms of the Stipulation. © || DATED: December 7, 2023 ry /)

Troy L. Nuhlep ] United States District Judge

STIPULATION FOR ATTORNEY FES

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

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

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