Torres v. Colvin
Filing
24
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 12/28/17 ORDERING that Plaintiff be awarded attorney fees in the amount $6,500.00; the 21 Motion for Attorney Fees is DENIED as moot. (Benson, A.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
PHILLIP A. TALBERT
United States Attorney
DEBORAH LEE STACHEL
Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX
Social Security Administration
CHANTAL R. JENKINS, PA SBN 307531
Special Assistant United States Attorney
160 Spear Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: (415) 977-8931
Facsimile: (415) 744-0134
E-Mail: Chantal.Jenkins@ssa.gov
8
9
Attorneys for Defendant
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
SACRAMENTO DIVISION
12
13
KATHRYN DIANE TORRES,
14
Plaintiff,
15
16
17
18
19
20
vs.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 2:16-cv-00310-DB
STIPULATION AND ORDER AWARDING
ATTORNEY FEES UNDER THE
EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT,
28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties, through their undersigned
21
counsel, subject to the Court’s approval, that Plaintiff be awarded attorney fees under the Equal
22
Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), in the amount of SIX THOUSAND FIVE
23
HUNDRED DOLLARS AND 00 CENTS ($6,500.00). This amount represents compensation
24
for all legal services rendered on behalf of Plaintiff by counsel in connection with this civil
25
action, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).
26
After the Court issues an order for EAJA fees and expenses to Plaintiff, the government
27
will consider the matter of Plaintiff’s assignment of EAJA fees and expenses to Plaintiff’s
28
attorney. Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010), the ability to honor the assignment
1
1
will depend on whether the fees and expenses are subject to any offset allowed under the United
2
States Department of the Treasury’s Offset Program. After the order for EAJA fees and
3
expenses is entered, the government will determine whether they are subject to any offset.
4
Fees and expenses shall be made payable to Plaintiff, but if the Department of the
5
Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, then the government shall cause
6
the payment of fees and expenses to be made directly to Robert C. Weems, pursuant to the
7
assignment executed by Plaintiff. Any payments made shall be delivered to Plaintiff’s counsel.
8
9
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
10
Defendant under the EAJA. Payment of the agreed amount shall constitute a complete release
11
from, and bar to, any and all claims that Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel may have relating to
12
EAJA attorney fees and expenses in connection with this action.
13
14
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.
15
16
17
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: December 27, 2017
/s/ Robert C. Weems by Chantal R. Jenkins*
ROBERT C. WEEMS
As authorized via email on December 21, 2017
Attorney for Plaintiff
Dated: December 27, 2017
PHILLIP A. TALBERT
United States Attorney
DEBORAH LEE STACHEL
Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX
Social Security Administration
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
By:
/s/ Chantal R. Jenkins
CHANTAL R. JENKINS
Special Assistant United States Attorney
28
2
1
ORDER
Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.1
2
3
4
Dated: December 28, 2017
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DLB:6
DB\orders\orders.soc sec\torres0310.eaja.ord
25
26
27
28
1
In light of the parties’ stipulation, plaintiff’s December 8, 2017 motion for EAJA fees (ECF
No. 21) is denied as having been rendered moot.
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?