Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02229/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02229-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405id Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

14-cv-2229-JAH-WVG

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID STYLES,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendants.

Case No.: 14-cv-2229-JAH-WVG

ORDER GRANTING COUNSEL'S 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES 

PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)

Before the Court is Counsel's Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

406(b) filed by attorney Lawrence Rohlfing (“Counsel”), who represented David Styles 

(“Plaintiff”) in this case. [Doc. No. 21]. Counsel seeks the payment of attorney fees in the

amount of $9,000.00. For the reasons set forth below, Counsel's motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

On June 27, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Title II application for a period of disability and

disability insurance benefits, and a Title XVI application for supplemental security income

benefits, alleging disability beginning November 1, 2010. See Doc. No. 18. On May 17, 

2013, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued a written decision finding Plaintiff not 

disabled and denied benefits. Id. Plaintiff appealed the denial of benefits to this Court.

Case 3:14-cv-02229-JAH-WVG Document 23 Filed 01/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

14-cv-2229-JAH-WVG

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

On March 31, 2016, this Court vacated the ALJ’s decision and remanded the case 

back for further proceedings. Id. On remand, the Commissioner issued a decision 

approving Plaintiff’s application for benefits and indicated the retroactive benefits totaled 

$65, 004.00. See Doc. No. 21–1, ¶ 4. The Commissioner has withheld $16,251.00, or 25%, 

from Plaintiff’s past due benefits in order to pay Counsel. In support of his motion, Counsel 

declared he expended a total of 32.9 hours of attorney time working on this case. 

Additionally he provided the Court with the contingency fee agreement and information 

pertaining to the average and median hourly rates that attorneys charge in the California 

region. Id. at ¶¶ 5, 9. The Commissioner filed a response to Counsel’s motion wherein no 

position was taken as to whether the gross fee Counsel is requesting is reasonable. See Doc. 

No. 22. 

LEGAL STANDARD

The Social Security Act provides:

Whenever 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, and the Commissioner of

Social Security may ... certify the amount of such fee for payment to such

attorney out of, and not in addition to, the amount of such past-due benefits.

42 U.S.C. § 406(b ); see also Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. at 789 (2002). In determining 

an award under section 406(b), courts first look to the contingency fee agreement, then test 

it for reasonableness. Id. at 808. To aid the court in assessing reasonableness, the court may 

require the claimant's attorney to submit a record of the hours spent representing the 

claimant and a statement of the lawyer's normal hourly billing charge for non-contingentfee cases. Id.

\\

\\

\\

Case 3:14-cv-02229-JAH-WVG Document 23 Filed 01/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

14-cv-2229-JAH-WVG

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

DISCUSSION

a. Contingency Fee Agreement

On August 28, 2014, Plaintiff and Counsel entered a contingency fee agreement. See

Doc. No. 21-2. Plaintiff agreed that Counsel's fee would be "25% of the back pay awarded 

upon reversal of any unfavorable ALJ decision for work before the court.” Id. There is no 

evidence the fee agreement was entered into involuntarily, or that the agreement benefits 

the attorney more than the client. Counsel’s request of $9,000.00 is notably less than the 

25% of back pay agreed to in the contingency agreement and set aside by the Social 

Security Administration. The requested amount does not exceed the 25% limit imposed by 

42 U.S.C. § 406(b).

b. Reasonableness

In Gisbrecht, the Supreme Court directed lower courts to consider “the character of

the representation and the results the representative achieved” to determine

“reasonableness.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808. A court may properly reduce the fee for 

substandard performance, delay, or benefits that are not in proportion to the time spent on

the case. Id.; see also Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1151 (9th Cir. 2009). Here, 

Counsel seeks a fee of $9,000.00 of the past-due benefits paid or payable to Plaintiff. The 

Social Security Administration calculates Plaintiffs past-due benefits at $65,004.00. See

Doc. No. 21–1, ¶ 4. In using the reasonableness test laid out in Gisbrecht, there is no 

evidence to indicate Counsel's representation was inadequate or insufficient. On the 

contrary, the case was decided in favor of Plaintiff and was remanded for the eventual 

awarding of benefits. Additionally, there is no evidence that suggests any delay on 

Counsel's part. Regarding the last factor, Counsel is asking for $9,000 out of the $65,004.00 

that was awarded to Plaintiff for past due benefits, which is far less than the 25% percent 

restriction. Counsel declared he spent 39.9 hours working on Plaintiff’s case. This equates 

to Counsel charging approximately $225.56 per hour, which is far less than the $439 per 

hour rate that the average attorney charges in the California region. See Doc. No. 21–7. 

Therefore, this Court determines that Counsel’s rate is reasonable. 

Case 3:14-cv-02229-JAH-WVG Document 23 Filed 01/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

14-cv-2229-JAH-WVG

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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Counsel’s Motion for Attorney Fees is GRANTED;

2. The Commissioner is ORDERED to pay the Law Offices of Lawrence D. 

Rohlfing $9,000.00; and

3. The hearing scheduled for January 29, 2018, before this Court, is 

VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 16, 2018 

_________________________________

JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-02229-JAH-WVG Document 23 Filed 01/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4