Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02317/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02317-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWW)

---

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 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

1

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MOLLY STEWART,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J, ASTURE,

Defendant.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 05-2317 PVT

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF

ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER 42 U.S.C.

§ 406(b)

On September 11, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees Under 42

U.S.C. § 406(b). Defendant opposed the motion in part. Both parties have consented to Magistrate 1

Judge jurisdiction. Based on the briefs and arguments presented,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s counsel is

awarded $16,192.00, of which he shall promptly reimburse Plaintiff $4,426.11.

Plaintiff brought this action for judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of

Social Security under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). This court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment and remanded the case to the Commissioner for further findings. On remand, the ALJ

issued a favorable decision and awarded Plaintiff a gross total of $64,768.00 in retroactive benefits

Case 5:05-cv-02317-PVT Document 29 Filed 03/15/10 Page 1 of 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

27

28

ORDER, page 2

for her and her auxiliary beneficiary. The Social Security Administration withheld 25%

($16,192.00) of the past due benefits to cover potential attorneys fees. Plaintiff’s counsel seeks an

attorneys fee award of $16,192.00, and he acknowledges that pursuant to the statutory offset

provision he must reimburse Plaintiff the amount he previously received in EAJA fees, $4,426.11 (or

the lesser of the two fee awards under EAJA and 42 U.S.C. section 406(b)(1)(A)).

Under Section 406(b)(1)(A), “[w]henever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant

. . . 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.” The court acts as

“an independent check” to assure that contingency fee agreements between Social Security claimants

and their attorneys will “yield reasonable results in particular cases.” See Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535

U.S. 789, 807 (2002). In determining the amount of fees to award counsel, the court must determine

whether the fees sought by counsel from his client are within the statutory limit, are consistent with

the fee agreement, and are reasonable in amount.

In looking at whether attorneys fees are reasonable for an attorney’s court representation of a

Social Security claimant in a particular case, the court must naturally consider entire fee attributable

to the court case. Here, Plaintiff’s counsel previously received EAJA fees in the amount of

$4,426.11. That amount must be added to his net recovery of $11,765.89 ($16,192.00 less the

$4,426.11 he must reimburse Plaintiff) he will receive from the present award in order to adequately

evaluate the reasonableness of his overall fee for this court case. Plaintiff’s counsel’s suggestion that

the court should base its reasonableness determination on just $11,765.89 of the award ignores the

reality of how much money he will actually have received for the court case.

Nonetheless, even basing the reasonableness determination on the entire $16,192.00, the

court finds the fee reasonable. As Plaintiff’s counsel points out, there was a significant risk of loss

associated with this case. And the award was not so large as to render an award of 25%

unreasonable. By way of comparison only, the requested fee award corresponds to an hourly rate of

approximately $600 per hour, which is not entirely out of line with non-contingency fees for

attorneys in the San Francisco bay area with Plaintiff’s counsel’s level of experience. Moreover, by

Case 5:05-cv-02317-PVT Document 29 Filed 03/15/10 Page 2 of 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

27

28

ORDER, page 3

their very nature, contingency fees are designed to account for the fact that the contingency fee

lawyer performs much work for no compensation on unsuccessful cases.

Dated: March 15, 2010

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-02317-PVT Document 29 Filed 03/15/10 Page 3 of 3