Kramer v. Saul

District Court, S.D. California · 3:20-cv-02065 · 2022-05-20 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T22:29Z · confidence high

The court reviewed the parties' stipulation for the award of Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) fees and costs in a Social Security case. It ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff $7,305.09 in attorney fees and $400.00 in costs, subject to the Treasury Offset Program.

What the court decided	The model
Award of EAJA attorney fees and costs based on stipulation “IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall be awarded attorney fees under the EAJA in the amount of SEVEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FIVE DOLLARS AND NINE CENTS ($7,305.09), and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, in the amount of FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS ($400.00), subject to the terms of the above-referenced Stipulation”	agree with court The court correctly adopted the parties' stipulation regarding the amount of fees and costs. In federal civil litigation, when parties stipulate to the amount of EAJA fees, the court generally adopts the stipulation unless it is manifestly unreasonable or contrary to law. The order cites the statutory basis (28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) and § 1920) and the controlling Supreme Court precedent regarding the offset program. The decision follows directly from the stipulated record.

What the court decided

The model

Award of EAJA attorney fees and costs based on stipulation

“IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall be awarded attorney fees under the EAJA in the amount of SEVEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FIVE DOLLARS AND NINE CENTS ($7,305.09), and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, in the amount of FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS ($400.00), subject to the terms of the above-referenced Stipulation”

agree with court
The court correctly adopted the parties' stipulation regarding the amount of fees and costs. In federal civil litigation, when parties stipulate to the amount of EAJA fees, the court generally adopts the stipulation unless it is manifestly unreasonable or contrary to law. The order cites the statutory basis (28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) and § 1920) and the controlling Supreme Court precedent regarding the offset program. The decision follows directly from the stipulated record.

The order itself: sound — The order is a routine adoption of a stipulated fee award. It correctly identifies the statutory authority for the fees (EAJA) and costs (28 U.S.C. § 1920) and correctly applies the Supreme Court's holding in Astrue v. Ratliff regarding the applicability of the Treasury Offset Program to EAJA awards. There are no gaps in reasoning because the decision rests entirely on the parties' agreement, which the court is empowered to adopt.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7

8 DEBORAH ANN KRAMER, ) No.: 3:20-CV-02065-GPC-AHG ) 9 Plaintiff, ) 10 ) ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY v. ) FEES UNDER THE EQUAL 11 ) ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 12 COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL ) PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, ) AND COSTS, PURSUANT TO 28 13 ) U.S.C. § 1920 14 Defendant. ) ) 15 17 Based upon the parties’ Stipulation for the Award and Payment of Equal 18 Access to Justice Act (EAJA) Fees and Costs, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall 19 be awarded attorney fees under the EAJA in the amount of SEVEN THOUSAND 20 THREE HUNDRED FIVE DOLLARS AND NINE CENTS ($7,305.09), and costs 21 under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, in the amount of FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS 22 ($400.00), subject to the terms of the above-referenced Stipulation, to include the 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 1 || United States Department of the Treasury’s Offset Program pursuant to Astrue v. 2 || Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010). Any payment shall be delivered to Plaintiff's 3 counsel. 4 ; Dated: May 20, 2022 2 sale Ox 6 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28