Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02159/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02159-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(d), Michael J. Astrue is substituted for his predecessor,

Jo Anne Barnhart, as the Commissioner of Social Security.

* E-filed 1/11/08*

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MY T. LE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security, 

Defendant. /

No. C06-02159 HRL

ORDER ON PETITION FOR

ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER THE

EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT

Re: Docket No. 22

Plaintiff My T. Le challenged the Social Security Administration’s denial of benefits. 

On the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, this court remanded the matter to the

Commissioner1

 for further proceedings. Le now moves for her attorney’s fees under the Equal

Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Plaintiff further requests that the

fees be made payable to her attorney as the payee. The Commissioner does not dispute Le’s

entitlement to an award, nor does he object to the reasonableness of the fee request. Rather, the

question is whether that award should be paid to plaintiff or to her counsel. This court now

deems the matter submitted on the papers without oral argument. 

Case 5:06-cv-02159-HRL Document 24 Filed 01/11/08 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2 This interpretation is consistent with cases addressing dual attorney’s fee awards

under the EAJA and the Social Security Act (SSA), 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). See Gisbrecht v.

Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002) (holding that fee awards may be made under both

statutes, but the claimant’s attorney must refund to the claimant the smaller amount). Under

the SSA, attorney’s fees are paid from the past-due disability benefits. Therefore, the

purpose of the EAJA award, in this context, has been described as a reimbursement to the

claimant for any reduction of her past-due benefits by attorney’s fee payments under the

Social Security Act. See Jankovich v. Bowen, 868 F.2d 867, 871 (6th Cir. 1989).

2

The EAJA directs courts to award fees and other expenses to private parties who prevail

in litigation against the United States, unless the government’s position was substantially

justified. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) (“a court shall award to a prevailing party ... fees and

other expenses ... incurred by that party in any civil action (other than cases sounding in tort),

including proceedings for judicial review of agency action, brought by or against the United

States”). As defined in the EAJA, “party” refers to the individual bringing the claim. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2412(d)(2)(B). 

“The term ‘prevailing party,’ as found in EAJA and other fee-shifting statutes, is to be

interpreted consistently.” McCarty v. Astrue, 505 F. Supp.2d 624, 629 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (citing

McQuiston v. Marsh, 790 F.2d 798, 800 (9th Cir. 1986)). This court is persuaded that, under

the plain language of the EAJA and statutory interpretation by other courts, the award of

attorney’s fees is to be paid to plaintiff as the “prevailing party,” and not to her attorney.2

 See,

e.g., Phillips v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 924 F.2d 1577, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“As the [EAJA]

requires, any fee award is made to the ‘prevailing party,’ not the attorney.”); McCarty, 505 F.

Supp.2d at 629 (on a motion to amend an order to make the attorney payee, holding that the

EAJA award of attorney’s fees belongs directly to the plaintiff as the “prevailing party”). 

Furthermore, the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit have also interpreted other feeshifting statutes to mean that an award of attorney’s fees are to be paid directly to the

“prevailing party” and not the party’s attorney. See, e.g.,Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717, 731-32

(1986) (concluding that 42 U.S.C. § 1988 bestows fee awards upon the prevailing party, not

attorneys); Gilbrook v. City of Westminster, 177 F.3d 839, 875 (9th Cir. 1999) (concluding that

a fee award under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 is to be made directly to the prevailing party, with the

ultimate disposition of the award to be determined by contract between the lawyer and client

Case 5:06-cv-02159-HRL Document 24 Filed 01/11/08 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3 At any rate, defendant cites authority indicating that if the fee award is made

payable to plaintiff’s attorney as payee, then this would be an invalid assignment. See 31

U.S.C. § 3727 (“Assignment of Claims Act”); Bentley v. Glickman, 234 B.R. 12, 20

(N.D.N.Y. 1999). Under that act, the assignment would only be valid “after a claim is

allowed, the amount of the claim is decided, and a warrant for payment of the claim has been

issued.” 31 U.S.C. § 3727(b) (i.e., a valid assignment could be made only after an award is

finally determined). 

3

(citing Evans, 475 U.S. at 731-32)). And, unlike Gilbrook, there is no indication here of a valid

assignment or that payment properly may be made to plaintiff’s counsel as the payee.3

Based on the foregoing, the award of attorney’s fees shall be paid to plaintiff, and not to

her attorney. The Commissioner is ordered to pay $4451.93 to My T. Le. Since defendant does

not object, the payment may be delivered to the custody of plaintiff’s counsel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/11/08

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-02159-HRL Document 24 Filed 01/11/08 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

5:06-cv-2159 Notice has been electronically mailed to: 

Nancy Marie Lisewski nancy.lisewski@ssa.gov 

James Hunt Miller jim_miller0@yahoo.com 

Sara Winslow sara.winslow@usdoj.gov, kathy.terry@usdoj.gov 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Date: 1/11/08 /s/ KRO 

Chambers of Judge Howard R. Lloyd

Case 5:06-cv-02159-HRL Document 24 Filed 01/11/08 Page 4 of 4