C.T. v. Social Security Administration
- Van Keulen
- 5:25-cv-09275
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In C.T. v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Van Keulen approved a $3,600 attorney's fee award to plaintiff's counsel under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Social Security claimants whose cases against the Commissioner are resolved in their favor and who seek reimbursement of attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act; attorneys representing such claimants on assignment of fee awards.
What happened
In C.T. v. Commissioner of Social Security (No. 5:25-cv-9275-SVK, N.D. Cal.), the plaintiff, identified only as C.T., brought a civil action against the Social Security Administration. After the case concluded, C.T.'s attorney sought reimbursement of legal fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), a federal law that allows prevailing parties in certain cases against the government to recover attorney's fees.
The two sides reached an agreement — called a stipulation — settling the fee request at $3,600. The defendant, the Commissioner of Social Security, did not admit any wrongdoing or liability in agreeing to pay this amount. The payment is to be sent to the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, C.T.'s legal representative, though the government retains the right to apply the money toward any federal debt C.T. may owe before directing the remainder to his attorney. The award does not prevent C.T.'s attorney from also seeking fees under a separate provision of the Social Security Act.
Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen approved the parties' agreement on August 19, 2026, and ordered that C.T. be awarded $3,600 in attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, subject to the terms of the stipulation.
The detailed version
- C.T. v. Social Security Administration · No. 5:25-cv-09275
- Van Keulen
- Aug. 19, 2026
Background
Plaintiff C.T. brought a civil action against the Commissioner of Social Security in the Northern District of California. The opinion does not describe the underlying merits of the Social Security dispute. Following the conclusion of that action, C.T.'s counsel sought attorney's fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), which permits courts to award fees and expenses to prevailing parties in civil actions brought against the United States when the government's position was not substantially justified.
The Stipulation
The parties, through counsel, filed a joint stipulation (a formal written agreement submitted to the court) settling the EAJA fee request. Key terms include:
- Fee amount: $3,600, representing compensation for all legal services rendered in connection with this civil action, authorized under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 2412(d). - No admission of liability: The stipulation expressly states it does not constitute an admission of liability by the Commissioner under the EAJA. - Complete release: Payment of $3,600 constitutes a full release of all EAJA fee, expense, and cost claims arising from this action. - Assignment: C.T. assigned his EAJA fee award to his attorney. However, per Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), the Commissioner will first determine whether the fees are subject to offset under the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Offset Program (which allows the government to apply a payment toward a federal debt the recipient owes). If no federal debt is owed, payment will be directed to the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley at 4 North Second Street, Suite 1300, San Jose, CA 95113, by check or certified funds. - Preservation of § 406(b) rights: The award is expressly without prejudice to counsel's right to seek fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) of the Social Security Act, subject to the EAJA savings clause (which prevents double recovery).
Ruling
Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen approved the stipulation and ordered that C.T. be awarded $3,600 in EAJA attorney's fees, subject to the terms of the stipulation. The order was entered on August 19, 2026.
Parties and Counsel
- Plaintiff's counsel: Anne M. Su, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley. - Defendant's counsel: Michael Marriot, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Social Security Administration Law & Policy.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.