(SS)Contreras v. Commissioner of Social Security

Docket 1:25-cv-01182

Filed
2025-09-12
Terminated
Not recorded
Case type
cv

Outcome

magistrate appeal denied

FJC civil IDB DISTRICT=72 OFFICE=1 DOCKET=2501182 FILEDATE=09/12/2025 DISP=20, PROCPROG=2, JUDGMENT=0; codebook: https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/idb/codebooks/Civil%20Codebook%201988%20Forward%2010252023.pdf

Outcome source

Parties and representation

      Party and firm records are not available for this case.

      Panel

        No sourced panel votes are recorded.

        Opinions and documents

        1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 FRESNO DIVISION 9 10 Abel Ascencion Contreras, Case No. 1:25-cv-01182-EPG 11 Plaintiff, STIPULATION FOR THE AWARD 12 AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY v. FEES AND EXPENSES PURSUANT 13 TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO 14 Frank J. Bisignano1, JUSTICE ACT; ORDER COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 15 SECURITY, 16 Defendant. 17 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through their 18 undersigned counsel, subject to the approval of the Court, that Plaintiff be awarded 19 attorney fees and expenses in the amount of SIX THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED 20 AND 00/100 ($6,500.00) under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. 21 § 2412(d), and costs in the amount of ZERO dollars ($0.00) under 28 U.S.C. §1920. 22 This amount represents compensation for all legal services rendered on behalf of 23 24 25 1 Frank J. Bisignano became the Commissioner of Social Security on May 7, 26 2025. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Frank J. Bisignano should be substituted for Leland Dudek as the defendant in this suit. No 27 further action need be taken to continue this suit by reason of the last sentence of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 1 Plaintiff by counsel in connection with this civil action, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 2 §§ 1920, 2412(d). 3 Plaintiff was the prevailing party in this matter and Plaintiff is an individual 4 whose net worth does not exceed $2,000,000 at the time the civil action was filed. 5 After the Court issues an order for EAJA fees to Plaintiff, the government will 6 consider the matter of Plaintiff’s assignment of EAJA fees to Plaintiff’s attorney. 7 Under Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S. Ct. 2521, 2528-29 (2010), EAJA fees awarded by this 8 Court belong to the Plaintiff and are subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program 9 (31 U.S.C. § 3716(c)(3)(B) (2006)). Any EAJA fees should therefore be awarded to 10 Plaintiff and not to Plaintiff’s attorney. If, after receiving the Court’s EAJA fee order, 11 the Commissioner (1) determines that Plaintiff has assigned his right to EAJA fees to 12 his attorney; (2) determines that Plaintiff does not owe a debt that is subject to offset 13 under the Treasury Offset Program, and (3) agrees to waive the requirements of the 14 Anti-Assignment Act, then the EAJA fees will be made payable to Plaintiff’s attorney, 15 16 JONATHAN O. PEÑA-MANCINAS at the firm, PEÑA & BROMBERG, PC. 17 However, if there is a debt owed under the Treasury Offset Program, the Commissioner 18 cannot agree to waive the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act, and the remaining 19 EAJA fees after offset will be paid by a check or electronic fund transfer (EFT) made 20 out to Plaintiff, but delivered to Plaintiff’s attorney, JONATHAN O. PEÑA- 21 MANCINAS at the firm, PEÑA & BROMBERG, PC. 22 This stipulation constitutes a compromise settlement of Plaintiff’s request for 23 EAJA attorney fees, and does not constitute an admission of liability on the part of 24 Defendant under the EAJA or otherwise. Payment of the agreed amount shall constitute 25 a complete release from, and bar to, any and all claims that Plaintiff and/or Counsel 26 including Counsel’s firm may have relating to EAJA attorney fees in connection with 27 this action. 1 The parties further agree that the EAJA award is without prejudice to the right of 2 Plaintiff’s attorney to seek attorney fees pursuant to Social Security Act § 206(b), 42 3 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to the offset provisions of the EAJA. See 28 U.S.C. § 4 2412(c)(1) (2006). 5 Respectfully submitted, 6 7 Dated: July 6, 2026 /s/ Jonathan O. Peña 8 J ONATHAN O. PEÑA Attorney for Plaintiff 9 10 Dated: July 6, 2026 ERIC GRANT 11 United States Attorney MATHEW W. PILE 12 Head of Program Litigation 1 13 Law & Policy Social Security Administration 14 15 By: _*_Marcelo N. Illarmo Marcelo N. Illarmo 16 Special Assistant U.S. Attorney 17 Attorneys for Defendant (*Permission to use electronic signature 18 obtained via email on July 6, 2026). 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ORDER 2 3 Based upon the parties’ Stipulation for the Award and Payment of Equal Access 4 || to Justice Act Fees and Expenses (the “Stipulation”), IT IS ORDERED that fees and expenses in the amount of SIX THOUSAND 7 | FIVE HUNDRED AND 00/100 ($6,500.00) as authorized by the Equal Access to 8 || Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), be awarded subject to the terms of the ° Stipulation. 10 11 12 || IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated July 7, 2026 [Jee hey 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4-

        Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.