Facts
- Plaintiff Valentine Coronado sought attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) following a civil action against the Commissioner of Social Security. [lines="18-22"]
- The parties agreed on an award of $7,500 for attorney fees and expenses, with no costs requested. [lines="28-34"]
- Coronado was the prevailing party in the case, and his net worth was under $2,000,000 at the time of filing. [lines="37-39"]
- The Commissioner conceded that their position was not substantially justified and agreed to the award of fees. [lines="40-41"]
- The stipulation serves as a settlement for attorney fees and does not signify an admission of liability by the Defendant. [lines="59-61"]
Issues
- Whether the stipulated amount for attorney fees and expenses under the EAJA should be granted. [lines="34-36"]
- Whether the Plaintiff's assignment of EAJA fees to his attorney is permissible under the Treasury Offset Program and other regulations. [lines="51-57"]
Holdings
- The court granted the stipulation for the award of $7,500 in attorney fees and expenses as per the EAJA. [lines="94-101"]
- The stipulation did not address the assignment of EAJA fees to the attorney but outlined conditions under which this may be considered if no offset debt was owed. [lines="50-58"]
OPINION
Case Information
Jonathan O. Peña, Esq.
CA Bar ID No.: 278044
Peña & Bromberg, PLC 3467 W. Shaw Ave., Ste 100
Fresno, CA 93711 Telephone: 559-439-9700
Facsimile: 559-439-9723
Email: info@jonathanpena.com
Attorney for Plaintiff, Valentine Coronado
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION
Valentine Coronado, Case No. 2:24-cv-00474-CKD Plaintiff, STIPULATION FOR THE AWARD AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY v. FEES AND EXPENSES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO Martin O’Malley [1] , Commissioner of JUSTICE ACT; ORDER Social Security, Defendant.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through their undersigned counsel, subject to the approval of the Court, that Plaintiff be awarded attorney fees and expenses in the amount of SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND 00/100 ($7,500.00) under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), and costs in the amount of ZERO DOLLARS AND 00/100 dollars ($0.00) 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).
Plaintiff was the prevailing party in this matter and Plaintiff is an individual whose net worth does not exceed $2,000,000 at the time the civil action was filed. The position of the Commissioner was not substantially justified and an award of fees is not unjust.
After the Court issues an order for EAJA fees to Plaintiff, the government will consider the matter of Plaintiff’s assignment of EAJA fees to Plaintiff’s attorney. Under Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S. Ct. 2521, 2528-29 (2010), EAJA fees awarded by this Court belong to the Plaintiff and are subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program (31 U.S.C. § 3716(c)(3)(B) (2006)). Any EAJA fees should therefore be awarded to Plaintiff and not to Plaintiff’s attorney. If, after receiving the Court’s EAJA fee order, the Commissioner (1) determines that Plaintiff has assigned his right to EAJA fees to his attorney; (2) determines that Plaintiff does not owe a debt that is subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program, and (3) agrees to waive the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act, then the EAJA fees will be made payable to Plaintiff’s attorney. However, if there is a debt owed under the Treasury Offset Program, the Commissioner cannot agree to waive the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act, and the remaining EAJA fees after offset will be paid by a check or electronic fund transfer (EFT) made out to Plaintiff, but delivered to Plaintiff’s attorney.
This stipulation constitutes a compromise settlement of Plaintiff’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 Plaintiff and/or Counsel including Counsel’s firm may have relating to EAJA attorney fees in connection with this action.
The parties further agree that the EAJA award is without prejudice to the right of Plaintiff’s attorney to seek attorney fees pursuant to Social Security Act § 206(b), 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to the offset provisions of the EAJA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(c)(1) (2006).
Respectfully submitted, Dated: November 12, 2024 /s/ Jonathan O. Peña
JONATHAN O. PEÑA Attorney for Plaintiff Dated: November 12, 2024 PHILLIP A. TALBERT
United States Attorney MATHEW W. PILE Associate General Counsel Office of Program Litigation Social Security Administration By: _* _Erin Jurrens Erin Jurrens
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Attorneys for Defendant (*Permission to use electronic signature obtained via email on November 12, 2024). ORDER
The parties’ Stipulation for the Award and Payment of Equal Access to Justice Act Fees and Expenses (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED.
IT IS ORDERED that fees and expenses in the amount of SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND 00/100 ($7,500.00) as authorized by the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), and costs in the amount of ZERO DOLLARS AND 00/100 dollars ($0.00) under 28 U.S.C. §1920, be awarded subject to the terms of the Stipulation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 14, 2024
_____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
[1] Martin O’Malley became the Commissioner of Social Security on December 26 20, 2023. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Martin O’Malley should be substituted for Kilolo Kijakazi as the defendant in this suit. No further action need be taken to continue this suit by reason of the last sentence of 27 section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 28