Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00988/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00988-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
William Strong
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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, William Strong

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

William Strong,

Plaintiff,

v.

Carolyn Colvin1, ACTING 

COMMISIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00988-EPG

STIPULATION FOR THE AWARD AND 

PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES AND 

EXPENSES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL 

ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT; |PROPOSED|

ORDER

(ECF No. 14)

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 ONE THOUSAND THIRTY-NINE DOLLARS and 63/100 ($1,039.63) 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. §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).

1 Carolyn Colvin became the Acting 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 1:24-cv-00988-EPG Document 15 Filed 01/06/25 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

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 including Counsel’s firm may have relating to EAJA attorney 

fees in connection with this action. 

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

Case 1:24-cv-00988-EPG Document 15 Filed 01/06/25 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

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: December 30, 2024 /s/ Jonathan O. Peña

JONATHAN O. PEÑA

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Dated: December 30, 2024 PHILLIP A. TALBERT

United States Attorney

MATHEW W. PILE

Associate General Counsel

Office of Program Litigation

Social Security Administration

 By: _*_Justin Lane Martin 

Justin Lane Martin

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney 

Attorneys for Defendant 

(*Permission to use electronic signature 

obtained via email on December 30, 2024). 

Case 1:24-cv-00988-EPG Document 15 Filed 01/06/25 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,” ECF No. 14), IT IS ORDERED that fees and expenses in the 

amount of ONE THOUSAND THIRTY-NINE DOLLARS and 63/100 ($1,039.63) 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 6, 2025 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00988-EPG Document 15 Filed 01/06/25 Page 4 of 4