Court, Explained
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Back to docket
Procedural orderFiled Sept. 11, 2025

Moss v. Bisignano

Judge
Dulce Foster
Docket
0:25-cv-00050
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
Social SecurityFee Petition
In one sentence

In Jaime M. v. Bisignano, Judge Foster granted the unopposed motion for $7,878.43 in attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act following remand to the Social Security Commissioner.

Who this affects

Social Security claimants and their attorneys who obtain remands from federal courts and seek attorney's fees from the government under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

What happened

In Jaime M. v. Bisignano (No. 25-cv-00050), a Social Security appeal in the District of Minnesota, the plaintiff sought attorney's fees after the case was sent back to the Social Security Commissioner for further review, based on an agreement between the parties.

The plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for $7,878.43 in attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), a federal law that allows winning parties to recover attorney's fees from the government in certain cases. The defendant, the Commissioner of Social Security, did not object to the motion or the amount requested.

United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster granted the fee motion, ordering the government to pay $7,878.43 in attorney's fees. The order notes that the fees may be reduced to cover any debt the plaintiff owes the federal government, and that if no such debt exists and the Commissioner waives a certain assignment restriction, the fees will be paid directly to the plaintiff's law firm, Duncan Disability Law S.C.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Moss v. Bisignano · No. 0:25-cv-00050
Judge
Dulce J. Foster
Date
Sept. 11, 2025

Background

This is a Social Security appeal in which the plaintiff, identified only as Jaime M. pursuant to the District of Minnesota's policy of using only the first name and last initial of Social Security plaintiffs, challenged a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security. The underlying case was resolved by remand — meaning the court sent the matter back to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings — based on a stipulation (agreement) between the parties. Following that remand, the plaintiff filed a motion for attorney's fees.

The Fee Motion

The plaintiff moved for $7,878.43 in attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The EAJA allows a prevailing party in a civil action against the United States to recover attorney's fees unless the government's position was substantially justified or special circumstances make an award unjust. The motion was unopposed — the defendant Commissioner of Social Security did not object to the motion or to the dollar amount sought.

The Court's Ruling

Judge Foster granted the fee motion and ordered the government to pay $7,878.43 in attorney's fees.

Offset and Payment Mechanics

Consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), the order notes that EAJA fees are subject to offset — meaning the government may reduce the payment to satisfy any preexisting debt the plaintiff owes the United States through the Treasury Offset Program.

The order sets out two payment scenarios: 1. If the Commissioner determines the plaintiff owes no offsettable debt and agrees to waive the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act (a federal law that generally restricts the transfer of government payments to third parties), the fees will be paid directly to the plaintiff's law firm, Duncan Disability Law S.C. 2. If the plaintiff does owe a debt subject to offset, any remaining fees after that offset will be paid by check made out to the plaintiff.

In either scenario, any check issued is to be delivered to Duncan Disability Law S.C., 555 Birch Street, Nekoosa, WI 54457.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.