Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00970/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00970-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial 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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHARLES V. MITCHELL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social 

Security, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:16-cv-970-EFB 

ORDER 

 Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), counsel for plaintiff in the above-entitled action seeks an 

award of attorney fees in the amount of $10,787, which is 25 percent of past benefits due to 

plaintiff. ECF No. 28. Plaintiff entered into a retainer agreement with his attorney which 

provides that he would pay counsel 25 percent of any past-due benefits won as a result of the 

appeal in this case. ECF No. 28-1. Counsel spent 22.3 professional hours on plaintiff’s case. 

ECF No. 28-4. 

 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A) provides, in relevant part: 

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 2:16-cv-00970-EFB Document 30 Filed 04/10/20 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 

2 

Rather than being paid by the government, fees under the Social Security Act are awarded 

out of the claimant’s disability benefits. Russell v. Sullivan, 930 F.2d 1443, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991), 

receded from on other grounds, Sorenson v. Mink, 239 F.3d 1140, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). 

However, the 25 percent statutory maximum fee is not an automatic entitlement; the court also 

must ensure that the requested fee is reasonable. Bisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 808-09 

(2002) (“We hold that § 406(b) does not displace contingent-fee agreements within the statutory 

ceiling; instead, § 406(b) instructs courts to review for reasonableness fees yielded by those 

agreements.”). “Within the 25 percent boundary . . . the attorney for the successful claimant must 

show that the fee sought is reasonable for the services rendered.” Id. at 807. 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.” Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1151 (9th Cir. 2009) (en 

banc). 

After this court remanded for further proceedings, plaintiff was found disabled and 

awarded past-due benefits in the amount of $43,148.06. ECF No. 28-3. Plaintiff’s counsel’s 

request for $10,787.00, which is the statutory maximum, would constitute an hourly rate of 

$483.72. Counsel did not delay these procedures and his representation of plaintiff was not 

substandard. Rather, he diligently and successfully represented his client’s interests before this 

court. Based on the risk of loss taken in representing plaintiff, counsel’s experience in the field of 

Social Security law, and the results achieved in this case, the court finds that fee request is 

reasonable. See De Vivo v. Berryhill, No. 1:15-cv-1332-EPG, 2018 WL 4262007 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 

6, 2018) (awarding fees at effective hourly range of $1,116.26); Jamieson v. Astrue, No. 

1:09cv0490 LJO DLB, 2011 WL 587096 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2011) (finding fee at effective hourly 

rate of $1,169.49 reasonable); Naddour v. Colvin, No.: 13-CV-1407-BAS, 2016 WL 4248557 

(S.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2016) (awarding fee at effective hourly rate of $1,063); Kazanjian v. Astrue, 

No. 09 civ. 3678 (BMC), 2011 WL 2847439, at *1-2 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2011) (finding that 

counsel “performed well, diligently, and with unusual efficiency,” and awarding fee at hourly rate 

of $2,100). 

///// 

Case 2:16-cv-00970-EFB Document 30 Filed 04/10/20 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 

3 

The $10,787 award should be offset in the amount of $3,500.00 for fees previously 

awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). See ECF No. 27. Accordingly, 

counsel will be granted $7,287.00 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). See Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 

535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002) (holding that where attorney’s fees are awarded under both EAJA and 

§ 406(b), the attorney must refund he smaller of the two awards to the plaintiff). 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for attorney’s fees (ECF No. 28) is granted; and 

2. Plaintiff’s counsel is awarded $7,287.00 in fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). 

DATED: April 10, 2020. 

Case 2:16-cv-00970-EFB Document 30 Filed 04/10/20 Page 3 of 3