Opinion
Vijay J. Patel, Attorney at Law: 285585, Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, Santa Fe Spring, CA, Attorney for Plaintiff, Roy Lee Jones.
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, United States Attorney.
Amanda D. Roth, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Attorneys for Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin Acting Commissioner of Social Security (Per e-mail authorization).
STIPULATION AND ORDER AWARDING EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT ATTORNEY FEES AND EXPENSES PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) AND COSTS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1920
BARBARA A. McAULIFF, Magistrate Judge.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through their undersigned counsel, subject to the approval of the Court, that Roy Lee Jones be awarded attorney fees and expenses in the amount of four thousand nine hundred and forty dollars ($4, 940.00) under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), and costs in the amount of twenty dollars ($20.00) 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).
After the Court issues an order for EAJA fees to Roy Lee Jones, the government will consider the matter of Roy Lee Jones's assignment of EAJA fees to Vijay J. Patel. The retainer agreement containing the assignment is attached as exhibit 1. Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 2529 (2010), the ability to honor the assignment will depend on whether the fees are subject to any offset allowed under the United 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.
Fees shall be made payable to Roy Lee Jones, but if the Department of the Treasury determines that Roy Lee Jones does not owe a federal debt, then the government shall cause the payment of fees, expenses and costs to be made directly to Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, pursuant to the assignment executed by Roy Lee Jones. United States v. $186, 416.00, 722 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2013) ($186, 416.00 II) (ordering fees paid to counsel because of an assignment that did not interfere with a raised superior lien). Any payments made shall be delivered to Vijay J. Patel.
The Commissioner does not stipulate to the citation of $186, 416.00 II, and will not participate in representing to this Court that it carries legal import in these proceedings. $186, 416 II involved a different statute and very different factual circumstances than those presented here, or in other Social Security cases. Because the parties have agreed to the payment of EAJA fees, and the amount, and to avoid motion practice solely related to Plaintiff's citation, the Commissioner agrees to this stipulation. The Commissioner reserves the right to challenge the applicability of $186, 416 to any Social Security case, and this Stipulation should not be construed as a waiver of such reservation.
This stipulation constitutes a compromise settlement of Roy Lee Jones'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 Roy Lee Jones and/or Vijay J. Patel including Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing may have relating to EAJA attorney fees in connection with this action.
This award is without prejudice to the rights of Vijay J. Patel and/or the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing to seek Social Security Act attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to the savings clause provisions of the EAJA. Respectfully submitted,
ORDER
Pursuant to the above stipulation, Plaintiff shall be awarded attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), in the amount of FOUR THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FORTY dollars and 00/100 cents ($4, 940.00). Plaintiff shall also be awarded TWENTY dollars ($20.00) in costs under Taxation of Costs, 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Defendant shall consider any assignment of EAJA fees under the conditions agreed to the in parties' stipulation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Roy Jones contends that U.S. v. $186, 416.00 in U.S. Currency, 642 F.3d 753, 757 (9th Cir. 2011) ($186, 416.00 I) held that there is no functional difference between the CAFRA and EAJA in terms of "ownership" of the fee.