Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jason Paul Lafontaine brought a civil action against Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, in the Northern District of California, Eureka Division. The filed document addresses attorney fees and expenses rather than the merits of the underlying Social Security dispute. Through counsel, the parties stipulated that Lafontaine should receive $10,500 under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), and no costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. They stated that the amount compensated counsel for all legal services rendered in connection with the civil action.
The parties also stipulated that the position of the United States was not substantially justified and that Lafontaine therefore was entitled to EAJA fees. Their agreement nevertheless characterized the fee arrangement as a compromise settlement and expressly disclaimed any admission of liability by the defendant under EAJA or otherwise. The court's order adopted the stipulated amount and terms; it did not independently review the administrative record or decide the underlying claim.
The Court’s Holding
The order awarded $10,500 in fees and expenses as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2412, awarded no costs under Section 1920, and made the award subject to the stipulation. Payment is to be made payable to Lafontaine. After entry of the fee order, the government will consider his assignment of the fees to counsel and determine whether the award is subject to an offset under the Department of the Treasury's Offset Program. Citing Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), the stipulation explains that the government's ability to honor that assignment depends on the offset determination. If Treasury determines that Lafontaine does not owe a federal debt, the government is to pay the fees, expenses and costs directly to his counsel under the assignment; payment may be made electronically or by check.
Payment of the agreed amount constitutes a complete release of, and bar to, EAJA attorney-fee claims relating to this action by Lafontaine and his counsel. That release does not eliminate every possible Social Security fee request: the award is expressly without prejudice to counsel's right to seek attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to the EAJA savings-clause provisions. The document therefore resolves the stipulated EAJA amount while leaving the separate statutory fee avenue open on its stated terms.
Key Takeaways
- The court awarded $10,500 in EAJA fees and expenses and no costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, subject to the parties' stipulation.
- The stipulation states that the government's position was not substantially justified but also provides that the compromise is not an admission of liability.
- The government must determine whether Treasury offset rules prevent it from honoring Lafontaine's assignment and paying the award directly to his counsel.
- Payment of the agreed amount bars further EAJA attorney-fee claims concerning this action by Lafontaine and his counsel.
- Counsel retains the right to seek fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to the EAJA savings-clause provisions.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates how an EAJA fee resolution in Social Security litigation can combine a negotiated award with safeguards governing the recipient of payment. Under the stipulated Astrue v. Ratliff framework, an assignment to counsel does not guarantee immediate direct payment; the government first determines whether a federal debt triggers Treasury offset procedures.
The agreement also distinguishes final resolution of the specified EAJA fee claims from preservation of a potential Section 406(b) request. Its release covers EAJA attorney-fee claims connected with the action, while the savings-clause qualification governs the reserved Social Security Act fee right. The order supplies no merits precedent concerning disability or other Social Security benefits and should not be read as such a ruling.