Slover v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 24

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE AWARD AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES AND EXPENSES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) AND COSTS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1920, signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 02/12/2019. (Apodaca, P)

Download PDF
Marc V. Kalagian Attorney at Law: 149034 Law Offices of Rohlfing & Kalagian, LLP 211 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 420 Long Beach, CA 90802 Tel.: (562) 437-7006 Fax: (562) 432-2935 E-mail: rohlfing.kalagian@rksslaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Daniel James Slover UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DANIEL JAMES SLOVER, Plaintiff, vs. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:17-CV-00958-JDP STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR THE AWARD AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES AND EXPENSES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) AND COSTS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1920 TO THE HONORABLE JEREMY D. PETERSON, MAGISTRATE JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties through their undersigned counsel, subject to the approval of the Court, that Daniel James Slover be awarded attorney fees in the amount of Three Thousand, Six Hundred dollars ($3,600.00) under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). 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 Daniel James Slover, the government will consider the matter of Daniel James Slover's assignment of EAJA fees to Marc V. Kalagian. The retainer agreement containing the assignment is attached as exhibit 1. Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 2529 (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 Daniel James Slover, but if the Department of the Treasury determines that Daniel James Slover does not owe a federal debt, then the government shall cause the payment of fees, expenses and costs to be made directly to Law Offices of Rohlfing & Kalagian, LLP, pursuant to the assignment executed by Daniel James Slover.1 Any payments made shall be delivered to Marc V. Kalagian. This stipulation constitutes a compromise settlement of Daniel James Slover'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 Daniel James Slover and/or Marc V. Kalagian including Law Offices of Rohlfing & Kalagian, LLP may have relating to EAJA attorney fees in connection with this action. This award is without prejudice to the rights of Marc V. Kalagian and/or the Law Offices of Rohlfing & Kalagian, LLP to seek Social Security Act attorney 1 The parties do not stipulate whether counsel for the plaintiff has a cognizable lien under federal law against the recovery of EAJA fees that survives the Treasury Offset Program. fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to the savings clause provisions of the EAJA. DATE: January 29, 2019 Respectfully submitted, ROHLFING & KALAGIAN, LLP /s/ Marc V. Kalagian BY: __________________ Marc V. Kalagian Attorney for plaintiff Daniel James Slover DATED: January 29, 2019 MCGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney /s/ Donna W. Anderson DONNA W. ANDERSON Special Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendant NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security (Per e-mail authorization) ORDER IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 12, 2019 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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?