Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-01999/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-01999-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Manuel Perez Alfaro
Plaintiff
Michael J. Astrue
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL PEREZ ALFARO,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner,

Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-12-1999 EMC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

(Docket No. 20)

I. INTRODUCTION

On September 28, 2012, this Court issued an order by stipulation of the parties reversing the

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security in this case, and remanding pursuant to section

205(g) of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence four. Docket No. 17. 

Currently pending before the court is Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to

Justice Act (“EAJA”). Docket No. 20. The parties do not dispute that Plaintiff is entitled to

attorney’s fees under the EAJA, or that he has made a valid assignment of the fees to his attorney. 

Defendant opposes only Plaintiff’s request that this Court order Defendant to disclose whether it

contends that the award of fees is subject to offset for any debt owed by Plaintiff to the federal

government. There also appears to be minor confusion about the amount of fees incurred.

///

///

///

Case 3:12-cv-01999-EMC Document 24 Filed 01/07/13 Page 1 of 3
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

II. DISCUSSION

A. Notice of Claimed Offset

Plaintiff requests that this Court order Defendant to provide notice within 21 days of any

claimed offset that would reduce the amount awarded here. In support of this request, Plaintiff cites

Bender v. Astrue, No. C 10–05333–MR, 2012 WL 113357, at *4 (N.D.Cal. Jan.12, 2012), in which

the court issued such an order. Defendant objects that such an order is improper as it is the

Department of Treasury, and not Defendant, who maintains records on such debts. 

This Court recently considered this very issue in Palomares v. Astrue, C-11-4515 EMC,

2012 WL 6599552 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2012). In that case, this Court noted that the Bender court

had cited no authority for ordering the Commissioner to provide such a notice of offset. Id. at *9. 

Further, this Court reasoned: 

There is no law stating that the Court must order the Commissioner to

notify a plaintiff of an offset. Under 31 U.S.C. § 3716, the head of an

administrative agency may collect a debt by administrative offset only

after giving the debtor written notice. 31 U.S.C. § 3716(a)(1). In

Astrue v. Ratliff, the Social Security Administration notified the

Plaintiff of an offset according to § 3716. ––– U.S. ––––, ––––, 130

S.Ct. 2521, 2522, 177 L.Ed.2d 91 (2010). In McCarty v. Astrue, the

Treasury Department sent Plaintiff notice of its intent to collect a debt

by offsetting the EAJA award. 505 F.Supp.2d 624, 632 (N.D.

Cal.2007). The court in McCarty held that Plaintiff’s due process

rights were not violated by Defendant’s failure to give notice that

Plaintiff’s EAJA award was eligible for an offset. Id. There is no

dispute that notice must be given under § 3716 before an EAJA award

can be offset. Since § 3716 applies, the Court declines to order the

Commissioner to give special notice within twenty-one days if it

contends the awarded EAJA amount is subject to an offset.

Nothing in this case calls into question the reasoning or result in Palomares. Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s request for an order requiring Defendant to disclose any claimed offset is DENIED.

B. Amount of Fees

In his opposition, Defendant states that he does not oppose the amount of fees requested by

Plaintiff, and attaches a proposed order awarding $3,477.00 in fees. In his reply brief, Plaintiff notes

that this amount, taken from Plaintiff’s motion, does not include fees incurred in preparing the reply

brief, or in attending a hearing on this motion. As this court is ruling on this motion without a

hearing, fees for attending the hearing are unnecessary. Plaintiff is requesting an additional $311.00

Case 3:12-cv-01999-EMC Document 24 Filed 01/07/13 Page 2 of 3
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

 Defendant points out that Plaintiff’s counsel has briefed the issue of notification of offset

in several recent cases, though he does not seek a reduction in Plaintiff’s fees in this case. Plaintiff’s

counsel submitted a declaration stating that none of the fees requested in this case are repetitive or

duplicative with time billed in other cases.

3

for 1.7 hours spent in preparing the reply brief.1 As Defendant does not object to the hourly rate

requested by Plaintiff’s counsel, and as the amount of time requested for the reply brief is

reasonable, this Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to $3788.00 in fees.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for attorney’s fees under

the Equal Access to Justice Act in the amount of $3788.00. The fee should be paid directly to

Plaintiff’s counsel, subject to any administrative offset due to Plaintiff’s outstanding federal debt, if

any exists.

This order disposes of Docket Number 20.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2013

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-01999-EMC Document 24 Filed 01/07/13 Page 3 of 3