Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01248/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01248-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:402 Social Security Benefits

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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, Shannon Marie Salado

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

Shannon Marie Salado,

Plaintiff,

v.

Carolyn Colvin1, ACTING 

COMMISIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:22-cv-01248-TLN-GSA

STIPULATION FOR THE AWARD 

AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY 

FEES AND EXPENSES PURSUANT 

TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO 

JUSTICE ACT; | ORDER

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 SIX THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED 

EIGHTY-EIGHT 20/100 ($6,788.20) under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 

U.S.C. § 2412(d), and costs in the amount of ZERO dollars ($0.00) under 28 U.S.C. 

1 Carolyn Colvin became the Commissioner of Social Security on November 30, 

2024. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Carolyn Colvin 

should be substituted for Martin O’Malley as the defendant in this suit. No further 

action need be taken to continue this suit by reason of the last sentence of section 

205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Case 1:22-cv-01248-TLN-GSA Document 26 Filed 01/02/25 Page 1 of 4
-2-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

§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 

Case 1:22-cv-01248-TLN-GSA Document 26 Filed 01/02/25 Page 2 of 4
-3-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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: January 2, 2025 /s/ Jonathan O. Peña

JONATHAN O. PEÑA

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Dated: January 2, 2025 PHILLIP A. TALBERT

United States Attorney

MATHEW W. PILE

Associate General Counsel

Office of Program Litigation

Social Security Administration

 By: _*_Una McGeehan 

Una McGeehan

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney 

Attorneys for Defendant 

(*Permission to use electronic signature 

obtained via email on January 2, 2025). 

Case 1:22-cv-01248-TLN-GSA Document 26 Filed 01/02/25 Page 3 of 4
-4-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Based upon the parties’ Stipulation for the Award and Payment of Equal Access 

to Justice Act Fees and Expenses (the “Stipulation”), 

IT IS ORDERED that fees and expenses in the amount of SIX THOUSAND 

SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY-EIGHT 20/100 ($6,788.20) as authorized by the Equal 

Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), be awarded subject to the terms of 

the Stipulation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2025 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01248-TLN-GSA Document 26 Filed 01/02/25 Page 4 of 4