McAuliffe v. O'Malley
- 3:23-cv-04478
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In McAuliffe v. O’Malley, the court approved $8,425.84 in Equal Access to Justice Act fees and expenses.
Coco Joliana McAuliffe and her attorney, Francesco Benavides, received an approved stipulated award of $8,425.84 in fees and expenses, subject to the stipulation’s payment terms; the government is responsible for making the payment as specified.
What happened
Coco Joliana McAuliffe and the government agreed that McAuliffe should receive attorney fees and expenses for this case under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a law allowing certain litigants to recover fees from the government. Their agreement requested $8,425.84 and no costs under a separate costs statute.
The agreement said the payment would be made to McAuliffe, although it could be paid directly to her attorney, Francesco Benavides, if the Treasury Department found that McAuliffe did not owe a federal debt. The agreement was a compromise and did not admit that the government was liable. It also preserved the attorney’s ability to seek certain fees under the Social Security Act.
In McAuliffe v. O’Malley, the court approved the stipulated award of $8,425.84 in fees and expenses and awarded no costs under the separate costs statute. The opinion does not identify the magistrate judge by name.
The detailed version
- McAuliffe v. O'Malley · No. 3:23-cv-04478
- Apr. 16, 2024
Background
The parties submitted a stipulation concerning attorney fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). The stipulation requested an award of $8,425.84 for all legal services provided by Francesco Benavides in connection with this civil action. It requested no costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
The stipulation stated that the award would be payable to McAuliffe. The government would consider McAuliffe’s assignment of the fees to Benavides after the order was entered, subject to any offset under the Treasury Department’s Offset Program. If the Treasury Department determined that McAuliffe did not owe a federal debt, the government would cause payment to be made directly to Benavides under the assignment.
The parties described the agreement as a compromise settlement of McAuliffe’s EAJA-fee request. It did not admit liability by the government. Payment would release and bar claims relating to EAJA fees in this action. The stipulation also stated that the award did not prevent Benavides from seeking attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to the EAJA’s savings-clause requirements.
Ruling
The court ordered that $8,425.84 in fees and expenses authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2412 be awarded subject to the stipulation’s terms. The court ordered no costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. The opinion text does not provide the magistrate judge’s name.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.