Myers v. CSS

Filing 32

STIPULATION and ORDER Approving Settlement of Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 USC2 412(d) and Costs Pursuant to 28 USC 1920, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/15/17. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 FRESNO DIVISION 7 8 9 10 11 DAVID KEITH MYERS, Plaintiff, vs. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 12 Defendant. 13 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:16-cv-00430-GSA STIPULATION AND ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), AND COSTS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1920 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties, through their undersigned 15 counsel, subject to the Court’s approval, that Plaintiff be awarded attorney fees in the amount of 16 SIX THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS ($6,150) under the Equal Access to 17 Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), and costs in the amount of FOUR HUNDRED 18 DOLLARS ($400) under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. This amount represents compensation for all legal 19 services rendered on behalf of Plaintiff by counsel in connection with this civil action, in 20 accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920; 2412(d). 21 After the Court issues an order for EAJA fees to Plaintiff, the government will consider 22 the matter of Plaintiff’s assignment of EAJA fees to Plaintiff’s attorney. Pursuant to Astrue v. 23 Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 598 (2010), the ability to honor the assignment will depend on whether the 24 fees are subject to any offset allowed under the United States Department of the Treasury’s 25 Offset Program. After the order for EAJA fees is entered, the government will determine 26 whether they are subject to any offset. 27 28 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, 1 1 expenses and costs to be made directly to James A. Yoro pursuant to the assignment executed by 2 Plaintiff. Any payments made shall be delivered to Plaintiff’s counsel. 3 This stipulation constitutes a compromise settlement of Plaintiff's request for EAJA 4 attorney fees and expenses, and does not constitute an admission of liability on the part of 5 Defendant under the EAJA or otherwise. Payment of the agreed amount shall constitute a 6 complete release from, and bar to, any and all claims that Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel, 7 including James A. Yoro, may have relating to EAJA attorney fees and expenses in connection 8 with this action. 9 This award is without prejudice to the rights of Plaintiff’s counsel and/or Chain | Cohn | 10 Stiles to seek Social Security Act attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to the savings 11 clause provisions of the EAJA. 12 Respectfully submitted, 13 14 Dated: December 11, 2017 15 16 By: /s/ Carolyn B. Chen for James A. Yoro (As authorized by email on 12/11/2017) JAMES A. YORO CHAIN | COHN | STILES Attorneys for Plaintiff 17 PHILLIP A. TALBERT United States Attorney DEBORAH LEE STACHEL Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX Social Security Administration 18 19 20 21 23 By: /s/ Carolyn B. Chen CAROLYN B. CHEN Special Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendant 24 ORDER 22 25 Dated: December 11, 2017 Pursuant to the above stipulation, Plaintiff shall be awarded attorney fees in the amount 26 27 28 of SIX THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS ($6,150) as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), and costs in the amount of FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS ($400) under 28 U.S.C. § 2 1 2 1920. Any payments shall be subject to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 598 (2010) and the terms of the above-referenced Stipulation. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: December 15, 2017 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?