Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01994/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01994-0/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

15-cv-1994-BTM-BGS

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

VINCENT MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of 

Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 15-cv-1994-BTM-BGS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT 

TO 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)

[ECF No. 17]

Plaintiff’s attorney, Lawrence D. Rohlfing (“Counsel”), moves for an award of 

attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Counsel asks the Court to award 

$30,000.00 in attorney’s fees from Plaintiff’s recovery of $173,585.00 in past-due

social security benefits, and to order Counsel to refund Plaintiff the $3,414.00 in 

fees Plaintiff has already paid under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). The 

Social Security Administration Commissioner filed a brief as a “trustee” but takes 

no position on the instant motion. Plaintiff has not responded to Counsel’s request. 

For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Counsel’s motion for 

attorney’s fees.

Case 3:15-cv-01994-BTM-BGS Document 21 Filed 07/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

15-cv-1994-BTM-BGS

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

BACKGROUND

On February 18, 2016, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion to 

voluntarily remand this action pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 

remanded this action for further administrative proceedings. ECF No. 12. On May 

2, 2016, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion for attorney’s fees and costs, 

awarding Plaintiff $3,414.00 in attorney’s fees and expenses under the EAJA, 28 

U.S.C. § 2412, and $400.00 in costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. ECF No. 12. 

On remand, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found Plaintiff was disabled

since September 1, 2010 and awarded Plaintiff past-due disability benefits. ECF 

No. 17-3. The Notice of Change in Benefits issued on October 6, 2018 informed 

Plaintiff that he was entitled to monthly benefits from February 2011 onward, and 

that $43,396.25 of those past-due benefits would be withheld in the event that

Counsel requested attorney’s fees for work performed before this Court. ECF No. 

17-4.

Counsel now requests $30,000 in attorney’s fees pursuant to a contingentfee agreement in which Plaintiff agreed to give Counsel 25% of any past-due 

benefits award. ECF No. 17-1; see also ECF No. 17-2 (the contingent fee 

agreement). Counsel further seeks an Order from this Court directing him to 

reimburse Plaintiff the $3,414.00 in fees Counsel has previously received under 

the EAJA. Id.

STANDARD

42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A) 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 . . . . 

Case 3:15-cv-01994-BTM-BGS Document 21 Filed 07/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

15-cv-1994-BTM-BGS

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

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) (en banc). Courts may request “a record of the hours spent representing 

the claimant and a statement of the lawyer’s normal hourly billing charge for 

noncontingent fee cases,” to aid in assessing a fee’s reasonableness. Gisbrecht, 

535 U.S. at 808; Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151. Counsel bears the burden of 

establishing that the requested fee is reasonable. Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1149. 

DISCUSSION

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

Section 406(b). ECF No. 17-2. Nothing in the record suggests that the agreement 

is invalid. Turning to the reasonableness of the requested $30,000.00 award, the 

Court finds that the result was successful and that there is no evidence of 

substandard representation or delay. The only issue before the Court is the fourth 

Gisbrecht factor, i.e., whether “the benefits are large in comparison to the amount 

of time [C]ounsel spent on the case” thereby resulting in a windfall. Gisbrecht, 535 

U.S. at 805.

Counsel submits that his office expended 20.15 hours of attorney and 

paralegal time, 15.85 hours and 4.3 hours respectively, on the case. ECF No. 17-

1, at 8 ¶ 5; ECF No. 17-5. Counsel requests $30,000.00, or approximately 17.28% 

of the Plaintiff’s recovered past-due social security benefits, which is less than the 

maximum $43,396.25 that the Commissioner withheld pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

406(b). See ECF No. 17-4, at 2. Counsel did not submit his typical non-contingent 

fee hourly billing rate, but presented evidence that the 95th percentile hourly rate 

Case 3:15-cv-01994-BTM-BGS Document 21 Filed 07/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

15-cv-1994-BTM-BGS

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

for all attorneys between 2015 and 2016 was $725 and that he has practiced social 

security law since 1985. ECF No. 17-1, at 9 ¶¶ 7-8, 8; ECF Nos. 17-6, 17-7. The 

effective blended attorney/paralegal hourly rate for work performed here is 

approximately $1,488.83. Counsel asserts that this hypothetical rate is 

proportionate to the time spent and, given the results achieved, the relevant market 

hourly rates, and the risks inherent in contingent-fee arrangements, is not a 

windfall. ECF No. 17, at 2-6. 

Given the primacy of lawful attorney-client fee agreements, the amount and 

complexity of the work performed, the risks assumed, the results achieved,

Counsel’s experience and efficiency, the effective hourly rates courts have 

previously approved in similar cases, and the fact that the requested fees are

significantly lower than the fees bargained-for in the contingent fee agreement and 

not excessively large in relation to the benefits achieved, the Court concludes that 

Counsel has carried his burden to demonstrate that a fee award of $30,000.00 

would be reasonable on the facts of this case. See Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151-

52. Accordingly, the Court will grant Counsel’s present motion and order that the 

attorney’s fee award of $30,000.00 be paid out of Plaintiff’s past-due benefits that 

have been withheld by Defendant. Since attorney’s fees have also been awarded 

to Counsel pursuant to the EAJA, however, the earlier EAJA attorney’s fee award 

in the amount of $3,414.00 must be refunded to Plaintiff. See Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. 

at 796 (“Congress harmonized fees payable by the Government under EAJA with 

fees payable under § 406(b) out of the claimant’s past-due Social Security benefits 

in this manner: Fee awards may be made under both prescriptions, but the 

claimant’s attorney must refund to the claimant the amount of the smaller fee.” 

(internal quotation marks, citation, and alterations omitted)). 

//

//

//

Case 3:15-cv-01994-BTM-BGS Document 21 Filed 07/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

15-cv-1994-BTM-BGS

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

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, Counsel’s motion for attorney’s fees (ECF No. 

17) is GRANTED. The Court awards attorney’s fees to Counsel in the amount of 

$30,000.00, to be paid out of the sums withheld by Defendant from Plaintiff’s pastdue benefits. Counsel shall reimburse Plaintiff in the amount of $3,414.00, the 

amount previously paid the Government under the EAJA.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2019

Case 3:15-cv-01994-BTM-BGS Document 21 Filed 07/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5