Garcia v. CSS
Filing
30
STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 12/11/14 ORDERING the court will approve the parties' stipulation as to plaintiff's receipt of Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA") fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). In light of the parties' superseding stipulation the court will also vacate plaintiff's November 21, 2014, petition for attorney's fees.ECF No. 27 .(Becknal, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SACRAMENTO DIVISION
11
12
13
14
LETICIA GARCIA,
Plaintiff,
v.
15
16
17
18
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 2:13-cv-01075-AC
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)
19
20
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through their undersigned
21
counsel, subject to the approval of the Court, that Plaintiff, Leticia Garcia, be awarded attorney
22
fees and expenses in the amount of seven thousand eight hundred dollars ($7,800) under the
23
Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). This amount represents
24
compensation for all legal services rendered on behalf of Plaintiff by counsel in connection
25
with this civil action, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1920; 2412(d).
26
After the Court issues an order for EAJA fees to Leticia Garcia, the government will
27
consider the matter of Leticia Garcia’s assignment of EAJA fees to John V. Johnson. Pursuant
28
to Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 2529 (2010), the ability to honor the assignment will
1
1
depend on whether the fees are subject to any offset allowed under the United States
2
Department of the Treasury’s Offset Program. After the order for EAJA fees is entered, the
3
government will determine whether they are subject to any offset.
4
Fees shall be made payable to Leticia Garcia, but if the Department of the Treasury
5
determines that Leticia Garcia does not owe a federal debt, then the government shall cause the
6
payment of fees, expenses and costs to be made directly to John V. Johnson, pursuant to the
7
assignment executed by Leticia Garcia. Any payments made shall be delivered to John V.
8
Johnson.
9
This stipulation constitutes a compromise settlement of Leticia Garcia’s request for
10
EAJA attorney fees, and does not constitute an admission of liability on the part of Defendant
11
under the EAJA or otherwise. Payment of the agreed amount shall constitute a complete
12
release from, and bar to, any and all claims that Leticia Garcia and/or John V. Johnson
13
including the Law Office of John V. Johnson may have relating to EAJA attorney fees in
14
connection with this action.
15
//
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
1
This award is without prejudice to the rights of John V. Johnson and/or the Law Office
2
of John V. Johnson to seek Social Security Act attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject
3
to the savings clause provisions of the EAJA.
4
5
Respectfully submitted,
6
Dated: Dec. 11, 2014
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN V. JOHNSON
7
By:
8
9
10
11
Dated: Dec. 11, 2014
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
DONNA L. CALVERT
Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX
Social Security Administration
12
13
14
By:
15
16
17
/s/ Jeffrey Chen for John V. Johnson*
JOHN V. JOHNSON
* By email authorization on Dec. 8, 2014
Attorneys for Plaintiff
/s/ Jeffrey Chen
JEFFREY CHEN
Special Assistant United States Attorney
Attorneys for Defendant
18
19
ORDER
20
21
22
The court will approve the parties’ stipulation as to plaintiff’s receipt of Equal Access to
Justice Act (“EAJA”) fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). In light of the parties’ superseding
23
24
25
26
27
stipulation the court will also vacate plaintiff’s November 21, 2014, petition for attorney’s fees.
ECF No. 27.
APPROVED AND SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 11, 2014
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?