Allen v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 28

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 1/30/19 AWARDING Ira Morgan Allen $2,400.00 under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), and no costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. (Coll, A)

Download PDF
Cyrus Safa Attorney at Law: 282971 Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing 12631 East Imperial Highway, Suite C-115 Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 Tel.: (562) 868-5886 Fax: (562) 868-8868 E-mail: rohlfing.office@rohlfinglaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Ira Morgan Allen UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IRA MORGAN ALLEN, Plaintiff, vs. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 2:18-cv-00059-CMK 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 TO THE HONORABLE DENNIS M. COTA, 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 Ira Morgan Allen be awarded attorney fees in the amount of two thousand four hundred dollars ($2,400.00) under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), and no costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. 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 Ira Morgan Allen, the government will consider the matter of Ira Morgan Allen's assignment of EAJA fees to Cyrus Safa. 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 Ira Morgan Allen, but if the Department of the Treasury determines that Ira Morgan Allen 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 Lawrence D. Rohlfing, pursuant to the assignment executed by Ira Morgan Allen.1 Any payments made shall be delivered to Cyrus Safa. This stipulation constitutes a compromise settlement of Ira Morgan Allen'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 Ira Morgan Allen and/or Cyrus Safa including Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing may have relating to EAJA attorney fees in connection with this action. This award is without prejudice to the rights of Cyrus Safa and/or the Law /// 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. Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing to seek Social Security Act attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to the savings clause provisions of the EAJA. DATE: January 23, 2019 Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE D. ROHLFING /s/ Cyrus Safa BY: __________________ Cyrus Safa Attorney for plaintiff Ira Morgan Allen DATED: January 23, 2019 MCGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney /s/ Carol S. Clark CAROL S. CLARK Special Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendant NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security (Per e-mail authorization) ORDER Approved and so ordered Dated: January 30, 2019 _______________________________ DENNIS M. COTA U.S. 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?