Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00698/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00698-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Sharon Lemke
Petitioner

Document Text:

EAJA Stip.; No. 2:23-cv-00698-JDP 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

27

28

PHILLIP A. TALBERT

United States Attorney

MATHEW W. PILE, WSBN 32245

Associate General Counsel

Office of Program Litigation, Office 7

Social Security Administration

Oscar Gonzalez de Llano

Special Assistant United States Attorney

Office of the General Counsel 

6401 Security Boulevard 

Baltimore, MD 21235

Telephone: (510) 970-4818

Email: Oscar.Gonzalez@ssa.gov 

Attorneys for Defendant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHARON LEMKE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 2:23-cv-00698-JDP

STIPULATION 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; [PROPOSED] ORDER

Plaintiff seeks an award of attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 

28 U.S.C. § 2412 et seq. After Plaintiff filed the Motion for Attorney Fees under EAJA (ECF 

Doc. 35), the parties engaged in good faith negotiations. Defendant, the Commissioner of Social 

Security (Commissioner), by their undersigned counsel, and Plaintiff, by their counsel, Robert C. 

Weems of Weems Law Office, now agree and stipulate as follows:

1. Plaintiff was the prevailing party in this matter; 

2. Plaintiff was an individual whose net worth did not exceed $2,000,000 at the time the civil 

action was filed; 

3. The position of the Commissioner was not substantially justified; 

4. An award of fees is not unjust; 

5. An award of $13,000 constitutes reasonable attorney fees and expenses in this matter; 

Case 2:23-cv-00698-JDP Document 37 Filed 01/13/25 Page 1 of 3
EAJA Stip.; No. 2:23-cv-00698-JDP 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

6. Payment of these amounts shall constitute a complete release from and bar to any and all

claims Plaintiff may have relating to EAJA fees in connection with this action. 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).

7. 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 her right to EAJA fees to her 

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 AntiAssignment 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.

Respectfully submitted,

Date: January 10, 2025 /s/ Robert Weems *

Robert Weems 

Weems Law Offices 

(as authorized by email) 

Attorney for Plaintiff

PHILLIP A. TALBERT

United States Attorney

Date: January 10, 2025 s/ Oscar Gonzalez de Llano 

OSCAR GONZALEZ DE LLANO

Special Assistant United States Attorney

Social Security Administration

Attorney for Defendant

Case 2:23-cv-00698-JDP Document 37 Filed 01/13/25 Page 2 of 3
EAJA Stip.; No. 2:23-cv-00698-JDP 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

ORDER

For the reasons set forth in the parties’ Stipulation for the Award and Payment of 

Attorney Fees and Expenses Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 

2412(d), and good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 

1. Plaintiff is here by awarded $13,000 in fees and expenses under the EAJA. 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 her right to EAJA 

fees to her 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.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees, ECF No. 35, is denied as moot and the hearing 

scheduled for February 13, 2025, is vacated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2025 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-00698-JDP Document 37 Filed 01/13/25 Page 3 of 3