Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled July 15, 2021

Kean v. Saul

Judge
Susan Van Keulen
Docket
5:20-cv-03236
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
Social SecurityFee Petition
In one sentence

In Kean v. Kijakazi, Judge Van Keulen approved the parties’ agreement awarding $1,940.19 in attorney fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

Who this affects

Michael Kean and his attorney, Anne Su, receive the approved fee award subject to the stipulation’s payment and possible Treasury offset terms; the Commissioner must implement the award.

What happened

In Michael Kean v. Kilolo Kijakazi, the parties agreed that plaintiff’s attorney should receive $1,940.19 under the Equal Access to Justice Act for work in the case. The opinion addresses only the fee award, not the underlying Social Security dispute.

The agreement states that the payment would resolve all claims for fees, expenses, and costs under that law and would not admit that the government was liable. Payment would generally be made to Michael Kean, although it could be paid directly to his attorney if the Treasury Department found that Kean did not owe a federal debt.

Judge Susan Van Keulen ordered the $1,940.19 attorney-fee award, subject to the agreement’s terms. The order preserved the attorney’s ability to seek separate fees under the Social Security Act.

The detailed version

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

Case
Kean v. Saul · No. 5:20-cv-03236
Judge
Susan Van Keulen
Date
July 15, 2021

Background

The filing is a stipulation and proposed order concerning attorney fees in Michael Kean’s Social Security case. The parties agreed that Kean’s counsel, as Kean’s assignee, should receive $1,940.19 under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 2412(d). The opinion does not describe the underlying Social Security claim or its merits.

Agreement

The parties characterized the payment as a compromise settlement of Kean’s request for EAJA fees. They stated that it was not an admission by the defendant of liability under the EAJA. The agreed payment would fully release and bar claims relating to EAJA fees, expenses, and costs connected with this action.

The agreement provided that, after an order awarding fees, the Commissioner would consider Kean’s assignment of the fees to his attorney. Payment could be affected by an offset under the Treasury Department’s Offset Program. The payment was to be made payable to Kean; if the Treasury Department determined that Kean did not owe a federal debt, the government would make the payment directly to his attorney, Anne Su, under the assignment. The agreement also stated that the award did not affect counsel’s ability to seek fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to the EAJA’s savings-clause requirements.

Ruling

Judge Susan Van Keulen ordered that Kean be awarded $1,940.19 in attorney fees under the EAJA, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 2412(d), subject to the terms of the parties’ stipulation.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.