Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 12, 2022

Alowdi v. Kijakazi

Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Docket
4:21-cv-05584
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
Fee PetitionSocial Security
In one sentence

In Alowdi v. Kijakazi, Judge Gilliam approved the parties’ $7,800 settlement of Alowdi’s attorney-fee request for his Social Security case.

Who this affects

Mansoor Alowdi and his attorney, Katherine R. Siegfried, received an approved $7,800 EAJA fee award, subject to the payment and federal-debt-offset terms in the stipulation; the order also governed the Commissioner of Social Security and the government’s payment obligations.

What happened

Mansoor Alowdi and Kilolo Kijakazi’s parties agreed to settle Alowdi’s request for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a federal law that can allow fees in certain cases against the government.

The settlement provided for $7,800 covering all legal services by Alowdi’s attorney, Katherine Siegfried, in this case. The fees would be payable to Alowdi, subject to possible offset for federal debt; if no debt applied, the government would pay Siegfried directly under Alowdi’s assignment. The agreement did not admit government liability.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. approved the stipulation and ordered EAJA fees in the amount of $7,800. The order did not address the underlying Social Security dispute.

The detailed version

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

Case
Alowdi v. Kijakazi · No. 4:21-cv-05584
Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Date
Aug. 12, 2022

Background

Mansoor Alowdi and the Commissioner of Social Security submitted a stipulation asking the court to approve a settlement of Alowdi’s request for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). The stipulated amount was $7,800, described as compensation for all legal services provided by Alowdi’s attorney, Katherine R. Siegfried, in connection with the civil action.

Settlement terms

The agreement stated that the fees would be paid to Alowdi. Consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Astrue v. Ratliff, the government would consider whether any federal debt required an offset before honoring Alowdi’s assignment of the fees to Siegfried. If the Treasury Department determined that Alowdi did not owe a federal debt, the government would make the payment directly to Siegfried under that assignment.

The stipulation described the payment as a compromise settlement and said it was not an admission of liability by the Commissioner under the EAJA or otherwise. Payment would release and bar claims relating to EAJA fees and expenses in this action. The agreement preserved Siegfried’s ability to seek fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406, subject to the EAJA’s provisions concerning coordination of fee awards.

Ruling

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. ordered EAJA fees in the amount of $7,800. This opinion concerns attorney fees and does not state or decide the outcome of Alowdi’s underlying Social Security claim.

Disposition

The court approved the stipulated EAJA-fee award and ordered payment of $7,800.

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.