Morales v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 28

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 7/4/17, ORDERING that plaintiff is AWARDED attorney fees in the amount of $4,800. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

PHILLIP A. TALBERT
United States Attorney
DEBORAH LEE STACHEL, CSBN 230138
Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX
Social Security Administration
C. HAY-MIE CHO, CSBN 282259
Special Assistant United States Attorney
160 Spear Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Attorneys for Defendant
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Attorneys for Defendant

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

12
13

MIGUEL A. MORALES,
Plaintiff,

14
15
16

vs.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,1
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:15-cv-1822-DB
STIPULATION AND ORDER
AWARDING ATTORNEY FEES
UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO
JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)

19

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties, through their undersigned counsel,

20

subject to the Court’s approval, that Plaintiff be awarded attorney fees under the Equal Access to

21

Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), in the amount of FOUR THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED

22

DOLLARS AND 00 CENTS ($4,800.00). This amount represents compensation for all legal services

23

rendered on behalf of Plaintiff by counsel in connection with this civil action, in accordance with 28

24

U.S.C. §2412(d).

25

1

27

Nancy A. Berryhill is now the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Nancy A. Berryhill should be substituted for Acting Commissioner
Carolyn W. Colvin as the defendant in this suit. No further action needs to be taken to continue this suit
by reason of the last sentence of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

28

1

26

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

After the Court issues an order for EAJA fees and expenses to Plaintiff, the government will
consider the matter of Plaintiff’s assignment of EAJA fees and expenses to Plaintiff’s attorney.
Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct 2521 (2010), the ability to honor the assignment will depend on
whether the fees or expenses are subject to any offset allowed under the United States Department of
the Treasury’s Offset Program. After the order for EAJA fees and expenses is entered, the government
will determine whether they are subject to any offset.
Fees and expenses 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 Bess Brewer, pursuant to the assignment executed by
Plaintiff. Any payments made shall be delivered to Plaintiff’s counsel.
This stipulation constitutes a compromise settlement of Plaintiff's request for EAJA attorney fees
and expenses, and does not constitute an admission of liability on the part of Defendant under the EAJA.
Payment of the agreed amount shall constitute a complete release from, and bar to, any and all claims
that Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel may have relating to EAJA attorney fees and expenses in
connection with this action.
This award is without prejudice to the rights of Plaintiff’s counsel to seek Social Security Act
attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406, subject to the offset provisions of the EAJA.

18
19

Dated: June 29, 2017

20

By: /s/ Bess M. Brewer
(As authorized via e-mail)
BESS M. BREWER
Attorney for Plaintiff

21
BRIAN STRETCH
United States Attorney

22
23
24
25

Dated: June 29, 2017

By: /s/ C. Hay-Mie Cho
C. HAY-MIE CHO
Special Assistant United States Attorney

26
27
28

2

1

ORDER

2

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.2

3
4

Dated: July 4, 2017

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

DLB:6
DB\orders\orders.soc sec\morales1822.stip.eaja.ord

23
24
25
26
27
28

2

In light of the parties’ stipulation, plaintiff’s June 5, 2017 motion for EAJA fees (ECF No. 26) is
denied without prejudice as having been rendered moot.
3