SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge
TO THE HONORABLE SHEILA K. OBERTO, MAGISTRATE JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT:
After the Court issues an order for EAJA fees to Erica Valero, the government will consider the matter of Erica Valero's assignment of EAJA fees to Young Cho. Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 2529 (2010), the ability to honor the assignment will depend on whether the fees are subject to any offset allowed under the United States Department of the Treasury's Offset Program. After the order for EAJA fees is entered, the government will determine whether they are subject to any offset.
Fees shall be made payable to Erica Valero, but if the Department of the Treasury determines that Erica Valero does not owe a federal debt, then the government shall cause the payment of fees, expenses and costs to be made directly to Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, pursuant to the assignment executed by Steven Edward Felipe. United States v. $186,416.00, 722 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2013) ($186,416.00 II) (ordering fees paid to counsel because of an assignment that did not interfere with a raised superior lien).
This stipulation constitutes a compromise settlement of Erica Valero's request for EAJA attorney fees, and does not constitute an admission of liability on the part of Defendant under the EAJA or otherwise. Payment of the agreed amount shall constitute a complete release from, and bar to, any and all claims that Erica Valero and/or Vijay J. Patel including Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing may have relating to EAJA attorney fees in connection with this action.
This award is without prejudice to the rights of Young Cho and/or the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing to seek Social Security Act attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to the savings clause provisions of the EAJA.
Pursuant to the terms of the parties' stipulation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is awarded attorney's fees and expenses in the amount of $4,960.00 under the EAJA.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Steven Felipe contends that U.S. v. $186,416.00 in U.S. Currency, 642 F.3d 753, 757 (9th Cir. 2011) ($186,416.00 I) held that there is no functional difference between the CAFRA and EAJA in terms of "ownership" of the fee.