Jennifer N. P. v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Karen S. Crawford (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion for an award of attorney fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) in a Social Security case. The court granted the motion and awarded the plaintiff $6,454.98 in legal fees.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Award of Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act granted“The Motion is GRANTED and plaintiff is awarded $6,454.98 in legal fees.” | agree with court The order recites that the Commissioner does not oppose the motion and has given substantive consideration to the merits. In the absence of opposition and with the amount agreed upon, granting the motion is the standard procedural outcome. The order correctly applies the rule that EAJA fees belong to the client and are subject to Treasury Offset, citing the controlling Supreme Court precedent. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a standard, unopposed EAJA fee award. It correctly cites Astrue v. Ratliff for the proposition that fees belong to the client and are subject to offset. It includes the necessary language regarding payment mechanics and the preservation of 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) rights. The reasoning is sufficient for the type of motion presented.
Opinion
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10
11 JENNIFER N. P., Case No. 3:25-cv-0952-BJC-KSC 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR vs. AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES 14 PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS 15 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL TO JUSTICE ACT SECURITY, 16 [DKT. NO. 15] 17 Defendant.
19 Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Award of Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal 20 Access to Justice Act (“Motion”). Dkt. No. 19. “The Commissioner has given 21 substantive consideration to the merits of plaintiff’s request” and does not oppose 22 the Motion. Dkt. No. 21. The Motion is GRANTED and plaintiff is awarded 23 $6,454.98 in legal fees. 24 Under Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S. Ct. 2521, 2528-29 (2010), EAJA fees belong 25 to plaintiff and are subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program, 31 U.S.C. § 26 3716(c)(3)(B). If, after receiving the Court’s EAJA fee Order, the Commissioner 27 1 || determines plaintiffhas assigned the right to EAJA fees to counsel and plaintiff does > || not owea debt that is subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program, then EAJA 3 || fees may be made payable to plaintiff's counsel, Eddy Pierre Pierre, by either 4 || electronic funds transfer or check. If plaintiffowes a debt under the Treasury Offset 5 || Program, any remaining EAJA fees after offset will be made by check payable to 6 || Plaintiff 7 Payment of the agreed amount shall constitute a complete release from, and g || to, any and all claims that Plaintiff and/or Eddy Pierre Pierre, including her firm, g || Pierre Pierre Law, P.C, may have relating to EAJA attorney fees in connection with 10 || this action. This award is without prejudice to the rights of Eddy Pierre Pierre or 11. || Pierre Pierre Law, P.C. to seek Social Security Act attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 12 || 406(b), subject to the savings clause provisions of the EAJA. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 || Dated: March 4, 2026 A iy i; ) Hori. Karen S. Crawford 16 United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ORDER Page 2 25-cv-0952-BJC-KSC