Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01008/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01008-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:402 Social Security Benefits

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAREN M. GONZALES,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARTIN O’MALLEY,

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,1

Defendant.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01008-NODJ-HBK2

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

GRANT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEY'S FEES PURSUANT TO 42 

U.S.C. § 406(b)3

FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD

(Doc. No. 32)

Jonathan O. Peña (“Counsel”) of Peña & Bromberg, PC, attorney Karen M. Gonzales

(“Plaintiff”), filed a motion seeking attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) on October 17, 

2024. (Doc. No. 32). Plaintiff was served with the motion and advised she had 14 days to object. 

(Id. at 1, 9). No opposition has been filed as of the date of this Order. (See docket). For the 

reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends the district court grant Plaintiff’s motion 

for attorney’s fees in the amount of $31,235.43 subject to an offset of $7,697.04 in fees 

1 The Court has substituted Martin O’Malley, who has been appointed the Acting Commissioner of Social 

Security, as the defendant in this suit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

2 On October 18, 2024, the case was reassigned to the No District Court Judge docket. (Doc. No. 32).

3 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 

(E.D. Cal. 2022). 

Case 1:21-cv-01008-TLN-HBK Document 33 Filed 11/25/24 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

previously awarded on March 20, 2023, under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2412(d). (Doc. No. 31).

I. BACKGROUND

On June 25, 2021, Plaintiff brought the underlying action seeking judicial review of a 

final administrative decision denying Plaintiff’s claim for supplemental security income and 

disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. (Doc. No. 1). On August 8, 2022, the 

Court granted the parties’ stipulation to a voluntary remand pursuant to sentence four of 42 

U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. Nos. 25, 26). The Court entered an award of $7,697.04 for attorney fees 

under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) on March 20, 2023. (Doc. Nos. 28, 31). 

On remand, the Commissioner found Plaintiff disabled beginning in December 2017. 

(Doc. No. 32-1 at 1). Plaintiff was awarded $124,941.72 in retroactive benefits.

4

 (Doc. No. 32-1

at 4). On October 17, 2024, Counsel filed this motion for attorney’s fees in the amount of 

$31,235.43 with an offset of $7,697.04 for EAJA fees already awarded. (Doc. No. 32 at 1-2).

Counsel argues these fees are reasonable because the contingency fee agreement, which Plaintiff 

signed, permits Counsel to retain 25% of the past-due benefits, and the requested amount is 

reasonable. (Doc. No. 32 at 3-6; Doc. No. 32-2). Defendant did not file any response to the fee 

requested, and time to do so has expired. (See docket). 

II. APPLICABLE LAW

Attorneys may seek a reasonable fee under the Social Security Act for cases in which they 

have successfully represented social security claimants. Section 406(b) allows:

Whenever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant under 

this subchapter who was represented before the court by an attorney, 

the court may determine and allow as part of its judgment a 

reasonable fee for such representation, not in excess of 25 percent of 

the total of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled....

42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). Counsel for a plaintiff may recover attorneys’ fees under both 42 

U.S.C. § 406(b) and EAJA. Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002). Counsel, however, 

must refund to the plaintiff the amount of the smaller fee. Id. 

4 Plaintiff noted this amount is not included in the notice of award; rather, Plaintiff calculated the amount

by multiplying the 25% of past due benefits amount by four ($31,235.43 x 4). (Doc. No. 32 at 3).

Case 1:21-cv-01008-TLN-HBK Document 33 Filed 11/25/24 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Fees in social security cases “are usually set in contingency-fee agreements and are 

payable from past-due benefits awarded to the claimant.” Biggerstaff v. Saul, 840 F. App'x 69, 70 

(9th Cir. 2020). The fee is not borne by the Commissioner. Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 

1147 (9th Cir. 2009). This provision’s purpose is in part to “ensure that attorneys representing 

successful claimants would not risk nonpayment of [appropriate] fees.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 

805 (internal quotations omitted). When weighing the adequacy of requested attorney’s fees, 

Courts should respect “the primacy of lawful attorney-client fee agreements.” Id. at 793. 

Counsel still bears the burden, however, of showing the requested fees are reasonable. Id. at 807. 

In determining reasonableness, the court may consider the experience of the attorney, the results 

they achieved, and whether there is evidence the attorney artificially increased the hours worked 

or the hourly rate charged. Id. at 807-808; Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151. Generally, any 406(b) 

award is offset by attorney fees granted under the EAJA. Parrish v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 

698 F.3d 1215, 1219 (9th Cir. 2012)

III. ANALYSIS

Here, Plaintiff signed a fee agreement agreeing to pay Counsel 25% of past due benefits 

awarded to Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 32-2). Counsel was ultimately successful in securing 

$124,941.72 in retroactive benefits for Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 32-1 at 4). In support of this motion, 

Counsel submitted a time sheet indicating the firm expended 33.25 hours in attorney time on this 

matter. (Doc. No. 32-3). The time Counsel spent in successfully attaining Plaintiff’s benefits 

does not appear inflated.

Counsel’s request for $31,235.43 in fees for 33.25 hours of work results in an hourly rate 

of $939.41 for the attorney work. (Doc. No. 32 at 5). Considering the effective rate of both 

attorney and paralegal hours in cases involving social security contingency fee arrangements this 

rate appears consistent with those approved by Ninth Circuit courts. Crawford v. Astrue, 586 

F.3d 1142, 1153 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that the majority opinion found reasonable effective 

hourly rates equaling $519.00, $875.00, and $902.00) (J. Clifton, concurring in part and 

dissenting in part); Mayfield v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:16-cv-01084-SAB, ECF No. 24, at 5 

(E.D. Cal. March 19, 2020) (approving hours rate of $1,025.22 for paralegal and attorney time); 

Case 1:21-cv-01008-TLN-HBK Document 33 Filed 11/25/24 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Biggerstaff v. Saul, 840 Fed. App’x 69, 71 (9th Cir. 2020) (affirming $1,400.00 per hour for 

combined attorney and paralegal work). Attorney hourly rates inevitably rise as their experience 

increases, and Counsel has been practicing social security law for more than 12 years. (Doc. No. 

32 at 7). Based on the foregoing, the Court finds the requested fees of $31,235.43 are reasonable.

Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807-08.

 An award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 406(b) in the amount of $31,235.43 is, therefore, 

appropriate. An award of § 406(b) fees, however, must be offset by any prior award of attorneys’ 

fees granted under the EAJA. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d); Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. 796. As Plaintiff was 

previously awarded $7,697.04 in fees pursuant to the EAJA, Counsel shall refund this amount to 

Plaintiff.

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED:

1. Plaintiff’s Counsel’s motion for an award of attorney’s fees under § 406(b) (Doc. No. 

32) be GRANTED. 

2. Plaintiff’s Counsel be awarded $31,235.43 in attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

406(b).

3. Counsel be directed to refund to Plaintiff $7,697.04 of the § 406(b) fees awarded as an 

offset for the EAJA fees previously awarded pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).

NOTICE TO PARTIES

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 

after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written 

objections with the Court. Id.; Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed fifteen 

(15) pages. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a party 

wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the exhibit in the record by its 

CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise reference the exhibit with 

specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation may be disregarded by 

the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 

Case 1:21-cv-01008-TLN-HBK Document 33 Filed 11/25/24 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

636(b)(l)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time may result in the 

waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). 

Dated: November 25, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01008-TLN-HBK Document 33 Filed 11/25/24 Page 5 of 5