Derreja v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
33
STIPULATION and ORDER granting 31 Motion for Attorney Fees in the amount of $4,700.00 signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/24/11. (Matson, R)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
LUCILLE GONZALES MEIS
Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX
Social Security Administration
FRANCESCO P. BENAVIDES
Special Assistant United States Attorney
Social Security Administration
333 Market Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: 415-977-8978
Facsimile: 415-744-0134
Email: Francesco.Benavides@ssa.gov
Attorneys for Defendant
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
SACRAMENTO DIVISION
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
PENNY R. DERREJA,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
)
Commissioner of
)
Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )
Case No. 2:09-CV-01964-KJN
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
FOR AWARD OF EAJA FEES
22
23
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through their undersigned counsel,
24
subject to the approval of the Court, that Plaintiff be awarded attorney fees under the Equal Access to
25
Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), in the amount of FOUR THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED
26
DOLLARS and 00/100’s ($4,700.00). This amount represents compensation for all legal services
27
rendered on behalf of Plaintiff by counsel in connection with this civil action, in accordance with 28
28
U.S.C. § 2412(d).
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
After the Court issues an order for EAJA fees and expenses to Plaintiff, the government will
consider the matter of Plaintiff's assignment of EAJA fees and expenses to Plaintiff's attorney. Pursuant
to Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S. Ct. 2521 (2010), the ability to honour the assignment will depend on whether
the fees and expenses are subject to any offset allowed under the United States Department of the
Treasury’s Offset Program. After the order for EAJA fees and expenses is entered, the government will
determine whether they are subject to any offset.
Fees and expenses shall be made payable to Plaintiff, but if the Department of the Treasury
determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, then the government shall cause the payment of
fees, expenses and costs to be made directly to Bess M. Brewer, pursuant to the assignment executed by
Plaintiff. Any payments made shall be delivered to Plaintiff’s counsel.
This stipulation constitutes a compromise settlement of Plaintiff's request for EAJA attorney fees
and expenses, and does not constitute an admission of liability on the part of Defendant under the EAJA.
Payment of the agreed amount shall constitute a complete release from, and bar to, any and all claims
that Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel may have relating to EAJA attorney fees and expenses in
connection with this action.
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 provisions of the EAJA.
DATE: June 23, 2011
/s/ Francesco Benavides for Bess M. Brewer*
BESS M. BREWER
Attorney at Law
(* by email authorization on June 23, 2011)
Attorney for Plaintiff
DATE: June 23, 2011
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
LUCILLE GONZALES MEIS
Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX
Social Security Administration
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
By:
/s/ Francesco P. Benavides
FRANCESCO P. BENAVIDES
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney
Attorneys for Defendant
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
ORDER
Based upon the parties’ Stipulation for Award of EAJA Fees (“Stipulation”), IT IS ORDERED
that Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) in the
amount of FOUR THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED DOLLARS and 00/100’s ($4,700.00), as
authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), and subject to the terms and conditions of the Stipulation.
DATED: June 24, 2011
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
]]>
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?
