Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01635/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01635-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

-1- 

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

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SANTIAGO A. RODRIGUEZ 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

 Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No.: 3:11-CV-1635-BTM-JMA

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES 

PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) 

Plaintiff’s counsel, Denise Bourgeois Haley (“Counsel” or “Ms. Haley”), 

has applied for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 206(b) of the Social 

Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). The request is based on Ms. Haley’s 

representation of Plaintiff before this Court pursuant to a contingent-fee agreement. 

(Doc. 16.) For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS IN PART and 

DENIES IN PART the motion for attorney’s fees. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Denise Bourgeois Haley of the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing 

represented Plaintiff in this case. (Haley Decl. ¶¶1-5, Ex. 1.) In October 2011, this 

Court remanded the case for further administrative proceedings pursuant to the 

parties’ joint motion, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (Doc. Nos. 9, 10). On 

remand, an Administrative Law Judge found Plaintiff disabled as of February 2, 

2006, and Plaintiff was awarded past-due benefits of $114,878.92. (Doc. 16-2.) 

Case 3:11-cv-01635-BTM-JMA Document 19 Filed 10/20/14 Page 1 of 3
-2- 

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

The Court thereafter reopened the case and entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff. 

(Docs. 12, 13.) 

 On September 30, 2014 the Court granted the parties’ joint motion for an 

award of attorney fees paid by the government under the Equal Access to Justice 

Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), in the amount of $900.00 (Doc. No. 18). 

Counsel now seeks a fee award pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A), which 

permits an award of fees from the benefits received by Plaintiff. In accordance 

with the contingent fee agreement, Counsel seeks an order awarding $4,000.00 in 

fees and requiring her to refund to Plaintiff the $900.00 in EAJA fees previously 

received by counsel. 

II. STANDARD

42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) provides: 

 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 by 

reason of such judgment . . . . 

 When evaluating a request for a contingent fee under § 406(b), courts must 

first look to the contingent-fee agreement, then test it for reasonableness. 

Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 808 (2002). The following factors, alone or 

in combination, may warrant a reduction: (1) the result achieved; (2) “substandard 

representation”; (3) delay by counsel; and (4) whether “the benefits are large in 

comparison to the amount of time counsel spent on the case,” thereby resulting in a 

windfall. Id. at 805; see also Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1151-53 (9th Cir. 

2009). 

Case 3:11-cv-01635-BTM-JMA Document 19 Filed 10/20/14 Page 2 of 3
-3- 

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

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff signed a 25% contingent fee agreement, the maximum allowed by 

406(b). (Doc. 16-1.) In this case, that amounts to $28,719.73. Plaintiff’s counsel 

seeks a fee of $4,000, 3% of the past due benefits. 

The Court believes that a reduction of the requested fee is warranted. Plaintiff’s 

counsel claims that the award is for 6.4 hours counsel expended before the District 

Court. However, upon examining the time records, it appears that the total time 

spent on the case before the District Court was 4.6 hours, with 1.5 of the hours 

billed by the attorney and 3.1 hours billed by a paralegal. This is a case where the 

benefits awarded, $114,878.92, are very large compared to the minimal amount of 

time counsel spent on the case. 

The Court concludes that the windfall created by the disparity between the size 

of the award and the amount of time counsel spent on the case justifies a reduction 

of the award by $2,000. Accordingly, the Court awards attorney’s fees in the 

amount of $2,000. 

IV. DISPOSITION

The motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN 

PART. The Court awards attorney’s fees to Denise Bourgeois Haley in the 

amount of $2,000. Counsel shall reimburse Plaintiff $900, the amount paid by the 

government under the EAJA. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

 

DATED: October 20, 2014 ________________________________ 

 BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ 

 CHIEF JUDGE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Case 3:11-cv-01635-BTM-JMA Document 19 Filed 10/20/14 Page 3 of 3