Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Rachida Kalyati, represented by Kyle Kitson of the Homeless Action Center, brought a civil action against the Commissioner of Social Security in the Northern District of California (Case No. 5:26-cv-01035-SVK). The underlying action involved a challenge to an adverse Social Security determination, though the specific nature of the benefits claim and prior administrative proceedings are not detailed in this stipulation document.
Following resolution of the merits, plaintiff's counsel sought attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), which authorizes fee awards to prevailing parties in civil actions against the United States unless the government's position was substantially justified. The parties engaged in negotiations regarding the fee amount rather than litigating the EAJA application.
The Court’s Holding
The parties stipulated to an award of $6,138 in EAJA attorney fees as a compromise settlement of plaintiff's fee request. The stipulation expressly states it does not constitute an admission of liability by the Commissioner under the EAJA. Payment of this amount constitutes a complete release and bar to any and all claims plaintiff may have relating to EAJA fees, expenses, and costs in connection with the action.
The order provides a specific payment mechanism accounting for the plaintiff's assignment of fees to her attorney. After the court issues the fee order, the Commissioner will determine whether the fees are subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program, per Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). If no federal debt is owed, payment will be made directly to plaintiff's counsel pursuant to the assignment executed by Ms. Kalyati. The award is without prejudice to counsel's right to seek Social Security Act attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to EAJA's savings clause provisions.
United States Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen entered the order on October 21, 2026, adopting the parties' stipulation. The order awards fees as authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 2412(d), subject to the stipulation's terms regarding assignment, offset, and release.
Key Takeaways
- Parties may compromise EAJA fee claims through stipulation without the government admitting its position lacked substantial justification.
- EAJA fee awards to represented plaintiffs are subject to the Treasury Offset Program before payment can be directed to counsel as assignee.
- An EAJA fee settlement does not bar counsel from separately seeking fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) for the same representation, subject to statutory coordination rules.
- The stipulation structure preserves the government's offset rights while facilitating direct payment to counsel when no federal debt exists.
- Magistrate judges in the Northern District of California may enter final orders on stipulated EAJA fee awards in Social Security cases.
Why It Matters
This stipulated order illustrates the routine resolution of EAJA fee disputes in Social Security litigation through compromise rather than adversarial briefing. The $6,138 amount reflects a negotiated figure below the statutory cap, avoiding litigation over whether the government's position was substantially justified or whether the fee application met EAJA's procedural requirements. The order's detailed offset and assignment provisions reflect the practical realities of EAJA fee collection after Astrue v. Ratliff, ensuring compliance with federal debt collection procedures while honoring fee assignments. The preservation of § 406(b) rights highlights the dual fee-track framework in Social Security cases, where counsel may recover from both the government (EAJA) and the claimant's past-due benefits (§ 406(b)), subject to offset to prevent double recovery.