(SS) Westfall v. Commissioner of Social Security

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedFebruary 16, 2021
Docket2:19-cv-00957
StatusUnknown

This text of (SS) Westfall v. Commissioner of Social Security ((SS) Westfall 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.

Bluebook
(SS) Westfall v. Commissioner of Social Security, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

McGREGOR W. SCOTT 1 United States Attorney 2 DEBORAH LEE STACHEL Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX 3 Social Security Administration MARCELO ILLARMO (MABN 670079) 4 Special Assistant United States Attorney 5 160 Spear Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94105 6 Telephone: (415) 977-8944 Facsimile: (415) 744-0134 7 Email: Marcelo.Illarmo@ssa.gov 8 Attorneys for Defendant 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 GLENN A. WESTFALL, ) No. 2:19-cv-00957-DB 12 ) Plaintiff ) STIPULATION AND 13 ) ORDER FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S 14 v. ) FEES UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO ) JUSTICE ACT (EAJA) 15 ANDREW M. SAUL, ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) 16 ) 17 Defendant ) ) 18 ____________________________________)

19 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through their undersigned counsel, 20 subject to the approval of the Court, that Plaintiff shall be awarded attorney’s fees under the Equal 21 Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. sec. 2412(d), in the amount of eight thousand dollars and 22 zero cents ($8,000.00); and no costs 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 23 accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920; 2412(d). 24 After the Court issues an order for EAJA fees to Plaintiff, the government will consider the 25 matter of Plaintiff’s assignment of EAJA fees to his counsel, Jared Walker. Pursuant to Astrue v. 26 Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 598, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 177 L.Ed.2d 91 (2010), the ability to honor the assignment 27 will depend on whether the fees are subject to any offset allowed under the United States Department 28 of the Treasury’s Offset Program. After the order for EAJA fees is entered, the government will 1 determine whether they are subject to any offset. 2 Fees shall be made payable to Plaintiff, but if the Department of the Treasury determines that 3 Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, then the government shall cause the payment of fees, expenses 4 and costs to be made directly to Jared Walker, pursuant to the assignment executed by Plaintiff. Any 5 payments made shall be delivered to Jared Walker. 6 This stipulation constitutes a compromise settlement of Plaintiff’s request for EAJA attorney 7 fees, and does not constitute an admission of liability on the part of Defendant under the EAJA or 8 otherwise. Payment of the agreed amount shall constitute a complete release from, and bar to, any 9 and all claims that Plaintiff and/or Jared Walker, including his firm, may have relating to EAJA attorney fees in connection with this action. 10 This award is without prejudice to the rights of Jared Walker to seek Social Security Act 11 attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to the savings clause provisions of the EAJA . 12

14 Respectfully submitted,

15 Dated: December 29. 2020

16 By: /s/ Jared Walker* 17 JARED WALKER * By email authorization on 12/28/20 18 Attorney for Plaintiff

20 Dated: December 29, 2020 McGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney 21 By: /s/ Marcelo Illarmo 22 MARCELO ILLARMO 23 Special Assistant United States Attorney

25 26 27 28 ORDER 1 Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED. It is also ordered that the December 2 15, 2020 motion for attorney’s fees (ECF No. 19) is denied as having been rendered moot. 3 4 DATED: FEBRUARY 12, 2021 /s/ DEBORAH BARNES 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8 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

Related

Astrue v. Ratliff
560 U.S. 586 (Supreme Court, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
(SS) Westfall v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ss-westfall-v-commissioner-of-social-security-caed-2021.