Thomas v. Kijakazi
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-10007
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Curtis Thomas v. Martin O’Malley, Judge Gilliam approved a $7,500 Equal Access to Justice Act fee-and-cost award to Thomas’s counsel.
Curtis Thomas and his attorney were affected by the approved $7,500 fee-and-cost award. Payment to counsel remained subject to any federal-debt offset and the Commissioner’s consideration of Thomas’s assignment.
What happened
Curtis Thomas v. Martin O’Malley concerned the parties’ agreement about attorney’s fees and costs after this Social Security case. The opinion does not describe the underlying Social Security dispute.
Thomas’s counsel and the Commissioner’s counsel jointly asked the court to approve a $7,500 payment under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The agreement said the payment would resolve Thomas’s claims for fees, expenses, and costs in this action, without admitting liability.
Judge Haywood Gilliam approved the stipulation and ordered the award. Payment to counsel was subject to possible federal-debt offsets, and the agreement preserved counsel’s ability to seek fees under another Social Security Act provision.
The detailed version
- Thomas v. Kijakazi · No. 4:21-cv-10007
- Haywood Gilliam
- Apr. 18, 2024
Background
The parties submitted a stipulation concerning Curtis Thomas’s request for attorney’s fees and costs. Thomas’s counsel, Jonathan Hart, and the Commissioner’s counsel agreed that Thomas’s counsel, as Thomas’s assignee, should receive $7,500 under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a federal law that permits fee awards in qualifying cases against the government. The stipulation cited 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 2412(d).
The $7,500 amount covered all legal services provided by counsel for Thomas in connection with this civil action. The stipulation described the payment as a compromise settlement and stated that it was not an admission that the Commissioner was liable under the Equal Access to Justice Act. It also stated that payment would fully release and bar Thomas’s claims relating to Equal Access to Justice Act fees, expenses, and costs in this action.
Payment and preserved claim
After the court entered the fee order, the Commissioner would consider whether to pay the money directly to Thomas’s counsel under Thomas’s assignment. Payment could be affected by the United States Department of the Treasury’s Offset Program if Thomas owed a federal debt. The stipulation further stated that the award did not prevent Thomas’s counsel from seeking attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to the Equal Access to Justice Act’s savings-clause requirements.
Ruling
On April 18, 2024, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. approved the parties’ stipulation and ordered the $7,500 award. The opinion addresses the fee agreement and does not decide the merits of the underlying Social Security dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.