United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 2020

Workman v. Saul

Workman v. Saul
United States District Court for the Northern District of California · Decided May 13, 2020
Workman v. Saul

Trial Court Opinion

1 || HARVEY P. SACKETT (72488) AND ASSOCIATES A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP. 548 Market Street, Suite 38822 San Francisco, California 94104-5401 Telephone: (408) 295-7755 Facsimile: (408) 295-7444 Attorney for Plaintiff IV /as 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA || BOBBI G. WORKMAN, ) Case No.: 4:19-cv-03895-YGR 12 ) ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff, ) STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED} 13 |/v. ORDER FOR THE AWARD AND 14 ) PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES ANDREW SAUL, ) PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL 15 ||Commissioner of Social Security, ) ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 ) U.S.C. § 2412(d) 16 Defendant.

17 ) 19 On February 11, 2020 this Court issued an order reversing the final decision of the || Defendant, Andrew Saul, the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner), with a remand 21 a rehearing, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (sentence four); judgment was entered.

22 In the interest of administrative and judicial economy, the parties have agreed to || stipulate that an award of THREE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TWENTY-FOUR AND || FOURTY ($3,824.40) in attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 25 ||U.S.C. § 2412(d), is reasonable. This award is without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to seek 26 ||attorney’s fees under section 206(b) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to STIPULATION AND {PROPOSED} ORDER FOR THE AWARD AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) from and bar to any claims Plaintiff may have relating to EAJA fees and costs. Further, such award shall not be used as precedent in any future cases, nor be construed as a concession by the Commissioner that the original administrative decision denying benefits to Plaintiff was not substantially justified.

6 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 but not limited to Harvey P. Sackett, and Sackett and Associates, may have relating to EAJA attorney fees in connection with this action.

12 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 Harvey P. Sackett (“Counsel”).

14 Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), the ability to honor an 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 is entered, the Government will determine whether they are subject to offset. Fees shall be made payable to Plaintiff, but if the Department of Treasury determines Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, then the Government shall cause the payment of fees, expenses, and costs to be made payable directly to Counsel, pursuant to the assignment executed by Plaintiff. Any payments made shall be delivered and made payable to Counsel.

22 Accordingly, Defendant agrees to pay Plaintiff $3,824.40 in attorney’s fees.

23 All parties whose signature lines appear in this document have consented to its filing.

24 This award is without prejudice to the rights of Sackett and Associates and/or Harvey P. 28 2 |! Sackett to seek Social Security Act attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to the savings clause provisions of the EAJA.

4 || Dated: May 6, 2020 SACKETT AND ASSOCIATES By: /s/ HARVEY P. SACKETT 6 HARVEY P. SACKETT Attorney for Plaintiff 7 BOBBI G. WORKMAN Dated: May 8, 2020 DAVID L. ANDERSON United States Attorney By: /sENNIFER L. TARN 11 JENNIFER L. TARN Special Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendant 13 [*As authorized by email on 5/6/20] ORDER 16 Pursuant to the stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 ||Dated: May 13, 2020 19 . Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers United States District Judge STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR THE AWARD AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.