Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01628/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01628-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Kelly Lee Thiele
Plaintiff

Document Text:

-1- 

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

Brian C. Shapiro 

Attorney at Law: 192789 

Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing 

12631 East Imperial Highway, Suite C-115 

Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 

Tel.: (562)868-5886 

Fax: (562)868-8868 

E-mail: rohlfing.office@rohlfinglaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Kelly Lee Thiele 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KELLY LEE THIELE, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

 Defendant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. 2:14-cv-01628-AC (TEMP)

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE 

AWARD AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY 

FEES AND PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL 

ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 

2412(d) 

 TO THE HONORABLE ALLISON CLAIRE, MAGISTRATE JUDGE OF THE 

DISTRICT COURT: 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through their undersigned 

counsel, subject to the approval of the Court, that Kelly Lee Thiele be awarded attorney fees in 

the amount of THREE THOUSAND dollars ($3,000) under the Equal Access to Justice Act 

(EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). 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). 

 After the Court issues an order for EAJA fees to Kelly Lee Thiele, the government will 

consider the matter of Kelly Lee Thiele's assignment of EAJA fees to Brian C. Shapiro. The 

Case 2:14-cv-01628-AC Document 21 Filed 03/28/16 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

retainer agreement containing the assignment is attached as exhibit 1. Pursuant to Astrue v. 

Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 2529 (2010), the ability to honor the assignment will depend on whether 

the fees are subject to any offset allowed under the United States Department of the Treasury's 

Offset Program. After the order for EAJA fees is entered, the government will determine 

whether they are subject to any offset. 

 Fees shall be made payable to Kelly Lee Thiele, but if the Department of the Treasury 

determines that Kelly Lee Thiele does not owe a federal debt, then the government shall cause 

the payment of fees, expenses and costs to be made directly to Law Offices of Lawrence D. 

Rohlfing, pursuant to the assignment executed by Kelly Lee Thiele. United States v. 

$186,416.00, 722 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2013) ($186,416.00 II) (ordering fees paid to counsel 

because of an assignment that did not interfere with a raised superior lien).1 Any payments made 

shall be delivered to Brian C. Shapiro. 

 This stipulation constitutes a compromise settlement of Kelly Lee Thiele'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 Kelly Lee Thiele and/or Brian C. Shapiro including Law 

 

1

 The Commissioner does not stipulate to the citation of $186,416.00 II, and will not participate 

in representing to this Court that it carries legal import in these proceedings. $186,416 II 

involved a different statute and very different factual circumstances than those presented here, or 

in other Social Security cases. Because the parties have agreed to the payment of EAJA fees, 

and the amount, and to avoid motion practice solely related to Plaintiff’s citation, the 

Commissioner agrees to this stipulation. The Commissioner reserves the right to challenge the 

applicability of $186,416 II to any Social Security case, and this Stipulation should not be 

construed as a waiver of such reservation. 

Kelly Thiele contends that U.S. v. $186,416.00 in U.S. Currency, 642 F.3d 753, 757 (9th Cir. 

2011) ($186,416.00 I) held that there is no functional difference between the CAFRA and EAJA 

in terms of “ownership” of the fee. U.S. v. Kim, 797 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2015) holds that the 

Anti-Assignment Act invalidates an assignment but does not preclude the attorney from gaining 

an interest in the fees. 

Case 2:14-cv-01628-AC Document 21 Filed 03/28/16 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

Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing may have relating to EAJA attorney fees in connection with 

this action. 

This award is without prejudice to the rights of Brian C. Shapiro and/or the Law Offices 

of Lawrence D. Rohlfing to seek Social Security Act attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), 

subject to the savings clause provisions of the EAJA. 

DATE: March 23, 2016 Respectfully submitted, 

 LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE D. ROHLFING 

 /s/ Brian C. Shapiro 

 BY: __________________

 Brian C. Shapiro 

 Attorney for plaintiff Kelly Lee Thiele 

DATED: March 23, 2016 

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER 

 

United States Attorney 

 

 /s/ Esther Kim

 

 ESTHER KIM 

 Special Assistant United States Attorney 

 Attorneys for Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin, 

 Acting Commissioner of Social Security 

 (Per e-mail authorization) 

ORDER

 Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 28, 2016 

Case 2:14-cv-01628-AC Document 21 Filed 03/28/16 Page 3 of 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

Case 2:14-cv-01628-AC Document 21 Filed 03/28/16 Page 4 of 4