Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02642/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02642-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
William Roach
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

Lawrence D. Rohlfing 

Attorney at Law: 119433 

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 

William Roach 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WILLIAM ROACH, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

 Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. 2:13-cv-02642-AC (TEMP) 

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE 

AWARD AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY 

FEES AND EXPENSES PURSUANT TO 

THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 

28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) AND COSTS 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1920 

 TO THE HONORABLE DALE A. DROZD, 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 William Roach be awarded attorney fees in the 

amount of three thousand seven hundred ninety two dollars ($3,792.00) under the Equal Access 

to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), and expenses in the amount of fourteen dollars 

($14.00) 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). 

Case 2:13-cv-02642-AC Document 23 Filed 07/27/16 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

 After the Court issues an order for EAJA fees to William Roach, the government will 

consider the matter of William Roach’s assignment of EAJA fees to Lawrence D. Rohlfing. The 

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 William Roach, but if the Department of the Treasury 

determines that William Roach 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 William Roach. 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 Lawrence D. Rohlfing. 

 This stipulation constitutes a compromise settlement of William Roach’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 William Roach and/or Lawrence D. Rohlfing including 

 

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. 

William Roach 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.

Case 2:13-cv-02642-AC Document 23 Filed 07/27/16 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

Law 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 Lawrence D. Rohlfing 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: October 2, 2015 Respectfully submitted, 

 LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE D. ROHLFING 

 /s/ Lawrence D. Rohlfing 

 BY: __________________

 Lawrence D. Rohlfing 

 Attorney for plaintiff William Roach 

DATED: October 2, 2016 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER 

United States Attorney 

 DONNA A. CALVERT 

 Regional Chief Counsel 

 Assistant United States Attorney 

 

 /s/ Sundeep Patel

 

 Sundeep Patel 

 Special Assistant United States Attorney 

 Attorneys for Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin, 

 Acting Commissioner of Social Security 

 (Per e-mail authorization) 

Case 2:13-cv-02642-AC Document 23 Filed 07/27/16 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

ORDER 

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

DATED: July 27, 2016 

Case 2:13-cv-02642-AC Document 23 Filed 07/27/16 Page 4 of 4