(SS) Senstad v. Commissioner of Social Security

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

(SS) Senstad v. Commissioner of Social Security

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AMY SENSTAD, No. 2:23-cv-02930-DAD-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION FOR THE AWARD OF 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER THE EQUAL SECURITY, ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT 15 Defendant. (Doc. No. 21) 16

17 18 On December 15, 2023, plaintiff Amy Senstad filed this action seeking review of a final 19 decision of defendant Commissioner of Social Security. (Doc. No. 1.) On June 25, 2025, the 20 matter was remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings consistent 21 with this court’s order. (Doc. No. 19.) On July 30, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation with the 22 court in which the parties agree that plaintiff shall be awarded attorney’s fees under the Equal 23 Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”),

28 U.S.C. § 2412

(d), in the amount of $9,695.00. (Doc. No. 21.) 24 Good cause appearing, and pursuant to the parties’ July 30, 2025 stipulation, the court 25 orders as follows: 26 1. Pursuant to the EAJA,

28 U.S.C. § 2412

(d), plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees in 27 the amount of $9,695.00; 28 2. After the issuance of this order, the government shall consider the assignment of 1 the EAJA attorney’s fees to plaintiff's counsel; 2 a. Pursuant to the decision in Astrue v. Ratliff,

560 U.S. 586

(2010), any such 3 assignment will depend on whether the attorney’s fees are subject to any 4 offset allowed under the United States Department of Treasury’s (‘“‘the 5 DOT”) Offset Program; 6 b. Fees shall be made payable to plaintiff, but if the DOT determines that 7 plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, then the government shall cause the 8 payment of attorney’s fees to be made directly to plaintiff's counsel, 9 Christopher James Reichman; 10 3. Whether the payment of attorney’s fees is made payable to plaintiff or to her 11 counsel, the check shall be mailed to plaintiff's counsel’s mailing address at: 12 Christopher James Reichman Prato & Reichman, APC 13 3675 Ruffin Road Suite 220 14 San Diego, CA 92123 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ July 31, 2025 Da A. 2, eyel 17 DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reference

Status
Unknown