(SS) Swartout v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California·Decided May 18, 2022·No. 1:20-cv-01424·Unknown

Opinion

No. 1:20-cv-01424-GSA MARK DANIEL SWARTOUT, Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE AWARD AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY v. FEES AND EXPENSES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 2412(d), AND COSTS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1920 Defendant. (Doc. 32) This stipulation is intended to replace the Motion for Attorney Fees Plaintiff filed on May 9, 2022. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through their undersigned counsel, subject to the approval of the Court, that Plaintiff be awarded attorney fees and expenses in the amount $6,650.00 (SIX THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED AND FIFTY dollars) under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), and costs in the amount of $400.00 (FOUR HUNDRED dollars) 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 Plaintiff’s assignment of EAJA fees to counsel, if any. Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 598, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 177 L.Ed.2d 91 (2010), the ability to honor any 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, Olinsky Law Group, pursuant to the assignment executed by Plaintiff. Any payments made shall be delivered to counsel, Olinsky Law Group. 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 counsel’s firm may have relating to EAJA attorney fees in connection with this action. This award is without prejudice to the rights of counsel and/or counsel’s firm to seek Social Security Act attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to the savings clause provisions of the EAJA.

Respectfully submitted,

DATE: May 17, 2022 /s/ Stuart Barasch Attorney for Plaintiff (as approved via email) PHILLIP A. TALBERT United States Attorney

DATE: May 17, 2022 By s/ Jennifer A. Kenney JENNIFER A. KENNEY Special Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendant

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

(SS) Swartout v. Commissioner of Social Security, (E.D. Cal. 2022).

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