Jennifer W. v. Bisignano
- Dulce Foster
- 0:24-cv-04127
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Jennifer W. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster approved a joint agreement requiring the government to pay $14,150 in attorney's fees to the plaintiff under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Social Security claimants who win cases against the government and seek attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, and their attorneys.
What happened
In Jennifer W. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security (Case No. 24-cv-4127), the plaintiff, a Social Security claimant identified as Jennifer W., sought attorney's fees after her case against the Social Security Commissioner. The parties reached a joint agreement (called a stipulation) that the government would pay $14,150 in attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), a federal law that allows winning parties to recover legal costs from the government in certain civil cases.
The court's order explains that whether the fee payment goes directly to Jennifer W. or to her attorney, J. Asha Sharma, depends on whether Jennifer W. owes any preexisting debt to the federal government. Under a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling (Astrue v. Ratliff), EAJA fees can be used to offset debts a plaintiff owes the government. If no such debt exists and the Commissioner waives certain legal requirements, the money will go to the attorney. If a debt exists, any remaining funds after offset will be paid by check to Jennifer W. herself. All checks are to be delivered to the attorney's address in Saint Paul, Minnesota.
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster approved the stipulation and ordered the government to pay the $14,150 in fees. A separate motion for attorney's fees that Jennifer W. had filed earlier — before the parties had a chance to confer and reach the agreement — was denied as moot, meaning it was dismissed because the stipulation already resolved the issue.
The detailed version
In this Social Security benefits case, Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota issued an order on February 20, 2026, approving a Joint Stipulation for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A).
Parties
The plaintiff is Jennifer W. (full last name withheld per the District's policy of using only first name and last initial for nongovernmental parties in Social Security matters). The defendant is Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security.
Background
Jennifer W. filed a motion for attorney's fees (ECF No. 32) before she was able to meet and confer with defense counsel. The parties subsequently met and conferred and filed a Joint Stipulation (ECF No. 36) agreeing to an award of $14,150 in EAJA fees. The EAJA allows prevailing parties in civil actions against the federal government to recover attorney's fees and costs, provided certain conditions are met.
Court's Ruling
Judge Foster approved the stipulation based on the parties' agreement and the plaintiff's supporting documents (ECF Nos. 34-2, 34-3, 34-4). The court ordered the government to pay $14,150 in attorney's fees.
Payment Mechanics
Consistent with the Supreme Court's holding in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), the court noted that EAJA fees may be subject to offset if the plaintiff owes a preexisting debt to the United States under the Treasury Offset Program. Two scenarios govern payment: 1. If the Commissioner determines Jennifer W. owes no offsettable debt and waives the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act, the fees will be paid directly to her attorney, J. Asha Sharma. 2. If a debt subject to offset exists under the Treasury Offset Program, the Commissioner cannot waive the Anti-Assignment Act requirements, and any remaining fees after offset will be paid by check made out to Jennifer W. herself. In either case, all checks are to be delivered to J. Asha Sharma, 2579 Hamline Avenue North, Suite C, Saint Paul, MN 55113.
Earlier Motion
The earlier motion for attorney's fees (ECF No. 32) was denied as moot because the stipulation fully resolved it.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.