Pauer v. Colvin

Filing 23

ORDER GRANTING 22 JOINT STIPULATION TO AWARD PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY FEES UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/2/2016. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2016)

1

HARVEY P. SACKETT (72488)

2
3

6

1055 Lincoln Avenue
Post Office Box 5025
San Jose, California 95150-5025
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

7

Attorney for Plaintiff

4
5

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LAURIE PAUER,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16
17

v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant.

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

Case No. 5:15-cv-05081-BLF

JOINT STIPULATION TO AWARD
PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY FEES
UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS
TO JUSTICE ACT AND PROPOSED
ORDER

18
On June 2, 2016 this Court issued an order reversing the final decision of the Defendant,
19
Carolyn W. Colvin, the Acting Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner), with a remand
20
for a rehearing. Judgment for Plaintiff was entered on that same date.
21
In the interest of administrative and judicial economy, the parties have agreed to stipulate
22
that an award of FIVE THOUSAND, SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS ($5,600.00) in attorney fees
23
and FOUR HUNDRED ($400.00) in costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28
24
U.S.C. § 2412(d), are reasonable in this case. This award is without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right
25
to seek attorney’s fees under section 206(b) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b),
26
subject to the offset provisions of the EAJA. However, this award shall constitute a complete
27
release from and bar to any and all claims Plaintiff may have relating to EAJA fees and costs in
28
1
JOINT STIPULATION TO AWARD ATTORNEY FEES UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT
AND PROPOSED ORDER

1

connection with this action. Further, such award shall not be used as precedent in any future

2

cases, nor be construed as a concession by the Commissioner that the original administrative

3

decision denying benefits to Plaintiff was not substantially justified.

4

Under Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), EAJA fees awarded by this Court belong to

5

the Plaintiff and are subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program (31 U.S.C. §

6

3716(c)(3)(B) (2006)). This Court should therefore order the EAJA fees to be paid to Plaintiff.

7

The Commissioner recognizes that Plaintiff assigned his right to EAJA fees to her attorney. If,

8

after receiving the Court’s EAJA fee order, the Commissioner (1) determines that Plaintiff does

9

not owe a debt that is subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program; and (2) agrees to

10

waive the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act, then the EAJA fees will be made payable to

11

Plaintiff’s attorney. However, if there is a debt owed under the Treasury Offset Program, the

12

Commissioner does not waive the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act, and the remaining

13

EAJA fees after offset will be paid by a check made out to Plaintiff but delivered to Plaintiff’s

14

attorney.

15
16
17
18

Accordingly, Defendant agrees to pay Plaintiff $5,600.00 in attorney’s fees and $400.00
in costs.
All parties whose signature lines appear in this document have consented to its filing.
Dated: August 1, 2016

By:

19
20
21

s/ Harvey P. Sackett
HARVEY P. SACKETT
Attorney for Plaintiff
LAURIE PAUER
BRIAN STRETCH
United States Attorney
DEBORAH L. STACHEL
Acting Regional Chief Counsel, region IX
Social Security Administration

22
23
24
25
26
27

Dated: August 1, 2016

By:

s/ Jennifer Tarn
JENNIFER TARN
Special Assistant United States Attorney
(as authorized via e-mail 7/1/16)
Attorneys for Defendant

28
2
JOINT STIPULATION TO AWARD ATTORNEY FEES UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT
AND PROPOSED ORDER

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

Dated:

3

_____________________________
HON. BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Court Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
JOINT STIPULATION TO AWARD ATTORNEY FEES UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT
AND PROPOSED ORDER