Saunders v. Berryhill ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE 8 RACHEL B. SAUNDERS, Case No. C18-5377RSL 9 10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 11 v. ATTORNEY’S FEES AND EXPENSES 12 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 13 Defendant. 14 15 For the reasons set forth in the parties’ “Stipulated Response to Fees” (Dkt. # 27) under 16 the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, et seq., and good cause shown, IT IS 17 HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 18 Plaintiff is here by awarded $6,526.28 in fees and $104.35 in expenses under the EAJA. 19 Under Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 595-98 (2010), EAJA fees awarded by this Court belong 20 to the plaintiff and are subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program (31 U.S.C. § 3716(c) 21 (2014)). Any EAJA fees should therefore be awarded to plaintiff and not to plaintiff’s attorney. 22 If, after receiving the Court’s EAJA fee order, the Commissioner of Social Security 23 (1) determines that plaintiff has assigned her right to EAJA fees to her attorney; (2) determines 24 that plaintiff does not owe a debt that is subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program; and 25 (3) agrees to waive the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act (31 U.S.C. § 3727 (1982)), 26 then the EAJA fees will be made payable to plaintiff’s attorney. However, if there is a debt 27 owed under the Treasury Offset Program, the Commissioner cannot agree to waive the 28 1 requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act, and the remaining EAJA fees after offset will be paid 2 by a check made out to plaintiff but delivered to plaintiff’s attorney. 3 DATED this 3rd day of December, 2021. 4 5 A 6 Robert S. Lasnik 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28