Opinion

(SS) Lopez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Apr 22, 2022
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 18.1%

The opinion

1 PHILLIP A. TALBERT

United States Attorney

2 PETER K. THOMPSON (HI 5890)

Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX

3

Social Security Administration

4 MARCELO ILLARMO (MABN 670079)

Special Assistant United States Attorney

5 160 Spear Street, Suite 800

San Francisco, California 94105

6

Telephone: (415) 977-8944

7 Facsimile: (415) 744-0134

Email: Marcelo.Illarmo@ssa.gov

8

Attorneys for Defendant

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

ESTEBAN LOPEZ, ) Case No. 2:20-cv-00360-AC

12 )

Plaintiff ) STIPULATION AND PROPOSED

13

) ORDER FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S

14 v. ) FEES UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO

) JUSTICE ACT (EAJA)

15 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, )

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, )

16

)

17 Defendant )

)

18 ____________________________________)

19

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through their undersigned counsel,

20 subject to the approval of the Court, that Plaintiff shall be awarded attorney’s fees and expenses

21 under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. sec. 2412(d), in the amount of five

22 thousand dollars ($5,000.00), and no costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. This amount represents

23 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). Accordingly, should this Court award

24

fees and expenses under EAJA pursuant to this stipulation, Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees (ECF

25

28) would be moot.

26

After the Court issues an order for EAJA fees to Plaintiff, the government will consider the

27

matter of any assignment of EAJA fees by Plaintiff to her counsel Kelsey Brown (Counsel). Pursuant

28

to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 598, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 177 L.Ed.2d 91 (2010), the ability to honor

1 the assignment will depend on whether the fees are subject to any offset allowed under the United

2 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.

3

Fees shall be made payable to Plaintiff, but if the Department of the Treasury determines that

4

Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, then the government shall cause the payment of fees, expenses

5

and costs to be made directly to Counsel pursuant to an assignment executed by Plaintiff. Any

6

payments made shall be delivered to Counsel.

7 This stipulation constitutes a compromise settlement of Plaintiff’s request for EAJA attorney

8 fees, and does not constitute an admission of liability on the part of Defendant under the EAJA or

9 otherwise. Payment of the agreed amount shall constitute a complete release from, and bar to, any

10 and all claims that Plaintiff and/or Counsel, including his firm, may have relating to EAJA attorney

fees in connection with this action.

11

This award is without prejudice to the rights of Kelsey Brown to seek Social Security Act

12

attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to the savings clause provisions of the EAJA .

13

14

15 Respectfully submitted,

16 Dated: April 21, 2022

17

By: /s/ Kelsey Brown*

18 KELSEY BROWN

By email authorization on 4/21/22

19 Attorney for Plaintiff

20

21 Dated: April _21, 2022 PHILLIP A. TALBERT

United States Attorney

22

By: /s/ Marcelo Illarmo

23

MARCELO ILLARMO

24 Special Assistant United States Attorney

25

26

27

28

Based upon the parties’ Stipulation for the Award and Payment of Equal Access to Justice Ac

2 Fees, Costs, and Expenses, IT IS ORDERED that fees and expenses in the amount of $5,000.00 as

° authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and no costs as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1920, be awarded subject

to the terms of the Stipulation. Furthermore, Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees (ECF 28) is denied

° as moot.

6 . ~

, ||DATED: April 21, 2022 Lhttwdrr— Chane

ALLISON CLAIRE

8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Lopez v. Kijakazi Stipulation and Proposed Order E.D. Cal. 2:20-cv-00360-AC

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.