Hajro v. Barrett et al

Filing 76

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James granting 74 Motion re: Attorney's Fees Payment (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/8/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MIRSAD HAJRO,

Case No. 10-cv-01772-MEJ

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION OF ORDER
GRANTING ATTORNEY’S FEES

v.
9
10

ROBIN BARRETT, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 74

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On September 18, 2012, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and

14

Costs pursuant to the Equal Access To Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). Dkt. No. 73.

15

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification of Order Granting Attorney’s Fees.

16

Dkt. No. 74. In his Motion, Plaintiff states that he executed an agreement assigning attorney’s

17

fees to his attorney, Kip Evan Steinberg, but Defendants insisted that the fees must be paid to

18

Plaintiff despite the assignment agreement. Mot. at 2. Plaintiff states that the attorney’s fees

19

award has been reported to the Internal Revenue Service as his own income, which has

20

unnecessarily complicated Plaintiff’s tax situation. Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff now seeks a Supplemental

21

Order from the Court clarifying the original attorney’s fee Order and requiring Defendants to

22

accept the assignment of fees agreement and issue an amended and corrected Form 1099. Id. at 3.

23

In response, Defendants argue that attorney’s fees awarded under the EAJA belong to the

24

prevailing litigant, not to the attorney, and Plaintiff’s Motion should therefore be denied. Opp’n at

25

1, Dkt. No. 75. In support of their argument, Defendants cite to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586

26

(2010). In that case, the United States Supreme Court “resolved a longstanding circuit split on the

27

question of whether fee awards under EAJA were payable to the party or the attorney by holding

28

that EAJA awards are to be paid to the prevailing litigant.” United States v. $186,416.00 in U.S.

1

Currency, 642 F.3d 753, 755 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. at 591). The

2

Supreme Court based its decision, in part, on the specific language in EAJA directing payments to

3

the “prevailing party, which is a ‘term of art’ that refers to the prevailing litigant.” Ratliff, 560

4

U.S. at 591. But as the Ninth Circuit has explained:
The Court’s decision in Ratliff did not stop there, however. It went
on to highlight the absence of language in EAJA explicitly directing
fees to attorneys. Comparing EAJA with a provision in the Social
Security Act making fee awards payable “to such attorney,” see 42
U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A), the Court concluded that “given the stark
contrast between the SSA’s express authorization of direct payments
to attorneys” and the absence of such language in EAJA, it would
not interpret EAJA to “contain a direct fee requirement absent clear
textual evidence supporting such an interpretation.” Ratliff, 130
S.Ct. at 2527–28. As the Court noted, Congress “knows how to
make fees awards payable directly to attorneys where it desires to do
so.” Id. at 2527.

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Ratliff counsels that in the absence of explicit instructions from
Congress awarding fees to the attorney, direct payment to the
attorney should not be presumed. Id.

12
13
14

$186,416.00 in U.S. Currency, 642 F.3d at 755-56.

15

Here, the Court agrees with other judges in this district that read Ratliff be read as

16

“confirm[ing] the common practice that an EAJA fee award is payable to the litigant and not the

17

attorney unless the party does not owe a debt to the government and assigns the right to receive

18

fees to the attorney.” Palomares v. Astrue, 2012 WL 6599552, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2012)

19

(awarding fees to be paid directly to plaintiff’s counsel, “subject to any administrative offset due

20

to [plaintiff’s] outstanding federal debt, if any exists”); see also Coffey v. Astrue, 2013 WL

21

120030, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2013) (directing attorney’s fees be awarded to attorney, subject to

22

any debt offset, where plaintiff had assigned the right to receive fees). Accordingly, the Court

23

GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion and directs that the attorney’s fees award, subject to any debt offset,

24

shall be paid directly to Kip Evan Steinberg.1 Defendants shall have the government issue an

25
26
27
28

1

The undersigned recognizes that courts in this district are divided on whether a valid assignment
alters the general rule that fees are awarded to the party. Compare, Smith v. Astrue, 2012 WL
3114595, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2012) (ordering fees to be paid directly to plaintiff,
regardless of fee assignment). Thus, Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s request is not without
merit, and any request for additional attorney’s fees for bringing this Motion is DENIED.
2

1

amended and corrected Form 1099 listing Mr. Steinberg as the payee with Mr. Steinberg’s social

2

security number or the Federal Employment Identification Number (“FEIN”) of Mr. Steinberg’s

3

law firm within 45 days.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7
8

Dated: April 8, 2014
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3