Plummer v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 25

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 8/8/2018 AWARDING Attorney fees under the Equal Justice Act. (Washington, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MCGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney DEBORAH LEE STACHEL Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX Social Security Administration Chantal R. Jenkins, SBN PA 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 LARRY GENE PLUMMER, 14 Plaintiff, 15 vs. 16 17 18 19 NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 2:17-cv-02414-CKD STIPULATION AND ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY FEES UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920, 2412(d) 20 21 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties, through their undersigned 22 counsel, subject to the Court’s approval, that Plaintiff be awarded attorney fees under the Equal 23 Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920, 2412(d), in the amount of EIGHT 24 THOUSAND DOLLARS AND 00 CENTS ($8,000.00). Additionally, it is stipulated by and 25 between parties, subject to approval of the Court, that Plaintiff be awarded costs in the amount of 26 FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE DOLLARS AND 29/CENTS ($425.29) for the cost of his 27 fees in this matter. This amount represents compensation for all legal services rendered on 28 1 behalf of Plaintiff by counsel in connection with this civil action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 2 §§ 1920, 2412(d). 3 After the Court issues an order for EAJA fees and expenses to Plaintiff, the government 4 will consider the matter of Plaintiff’s assignment of EAJA fees and expenses to Plaintiff’s 5 attorney. Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010), the ability to honor the assignment 6 will depend on whether the fees and expenses are subject to any offset allowed under the United 7 States Department of the Treasury’s Offset Program. After the order for EAJA fees and 8 expenses is entered, the government will determine whether they are subject to any offset. 9 Fees shall be made payable to Plaintiff, but if the Department of the Treasury determines 10 that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, then the government shall cause the payment of fees 11 and expenses to be made directly to Ana L. Molleda, pursuant to the assignment executed by 12 Plaintiff. Any payments made shall be delivered to Plaintiff’s counsel. 13 This stipulation constitutes a compromise settlement of Plaintiff’s request for EAJA 14 attorney fees and expenses, and does not constitute an admission of liability on the part of 15 Defendant under the EAJA. Payment of the agreed amount shall constitute a complete release 16 from, and bar to, any and all claims that Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel may have relating to 17 EAJA attorney fees and expenses in connection with this action. 18 19 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. 20 21 22 23 Respectfully submitted, Dated: August 7, 2018 /s/ Ana L. Molleda by Chantal R. Jenkins* Ana L. Molleda *As authorized via email by Ana L. Molleda on August 3, 2018 Attorney for Plaintiff Dated: August 7, 2018 MCGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney 24 25 26 27 28 DEBORAH LEE STACHEL Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX Social Security Administration 1 2 3 By: 4 5 /s/ Chantal R. Jenkins CHANTAL R. JENKINS Special Assistant United States Attorney 6 7 8 ORDER 9 10 APPROVED AND SO ORDERED. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: August 8, 2018 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY 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?