Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01756/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01756-3/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Pending before the Court is counsel for Plaintiff Amy Vaenkham’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for 

attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). (Doc. No. 20). The Commissioner of Social Security 

(the “Commissioner”) has filed a response to the motion analyzing the fee request but taking no 

position as to its reasonableness. (Doc. No. 22). Having reviewed the motion and its supporting 

documentation, as well as the case file, the Court GRANTS the motion and awards attorneys’ fees in 

the amount of $20,745.00. 

I. Relevant Background

The Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing entered into a written contingent fee agreement with 

Plaintiff dated October 27, 2016, which provided that “[i]n consideration of the services to be 

1 Andrew M. Saul is now the Commissioner of Social Security. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, Andrew M. Saul is substituted for Acting Commissioner Nancy A. Berryhill as the defendant in this suit. 

AMY VAENKHAM

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREW M. SAUL,1 Commissioner of 

Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01756-BAM

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. 

§ 406(b)

(Doc. No. 20)

Case 1:16-cv-01756-BAM Document 23 Filed 06/09/20 Page 1 of 4
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

27

28

performed by the Attorney and it being the desire of the Claimant to compensate Attorney out of the 

proceeds . . . the fee for successful prosecution of this matter is . . . 25% of the past due benefits 

awarded upon reversal of any unfavorable ALJ decision for work before the Social Security 

Administration” and “a separate 25% of the past due benefits awarded upon reversal of any unfavorable 

ALJ decision for work before the court.” (Doc. No. 20-1).

On November 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed this action seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s 

denial of benefits. (Doc. No. 1). On March 27, 2018, the Court issued an order reversing the 

Commissioner’s denial of benefits and ordering remand pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 

405(g). (Doc. No. 16.) On May 3, 2018, the Court approved the parties’ stipulation to award Plaintiff 

$4,500.00 in attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (Doc. No. 

19.) On remand, the Commissioner issued a decision to grant Plaintiff’s application for benefits and, on 

May 8, 2019, issued a notice indicating that Plaintiff was entitled to receive $82,980.00 in retroactive 

benefits. (Doc. No. 20-3.)

In the present Motion, Plaintiff’s counsel asks the Court to award attorneys’ fees in the amount 

of $20,745.00. (Doc. No. 20.) Plaintiff’s counsel contends this fee is reasonable in light of the services 

rendered and results achieved, as counsel prepared and participated in obtaining a favorable result and 

the manner and approach to the case saved time and reduced the accumulation of past-due benefits.

(Doc. No. 20 at 4-5.) Additionally, the fee counsel seeks is twenty percent of the past-due benefits 

payable to Plaintiff. (Id. at 5.) The Commissioner filed a statement in response to the Motion providing 

an analysis of the fee request but taking no position regarding its reasonableness. (Doc. No. 22.)

II. Legal Standard

An attorney may seek an award of fees for representation of a Social Security claimant who is 

awarded benefits:

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. . ..

42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A); see also Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 794 (2002) (Section 406(b) 

controls fees awarded for representation of Social Security claimants). A contingency fee agreement is 

Case 1:16-cv-01756-BAM Document 23 Filed 06/09/20 Page 2 of 4
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

unenforceable if it provides for fees exceeding twenty-five percent of past-due benefits. Gisbrecht,

supra, 535 U.S. at 807.

III. Discussion and Analysis

District courts “have been deferential to the terms of contingency fee contracts § 406(b) cases.” 

Hern v. Barnhart, 262 F.Supp.2d 1033, 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2003). However, the Court must review 

contingent-fee arrangements “as an independent check, to assure that they yield reasonable results in 

particular cases.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807. In doing so, the Court should consider “the character of 

the representation and the results the representative achieved.” Id. at 808. In addition, the Court should 

consider whether the attorney performed in a substandard manner or engaged in dilatory conduct or 

excessive delays, and whether the fees are “excessively large in relation to the benefits received.”

Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

In this case, after carefully considering the fee agreement and the applicable law, the Court 

finds Plaintiff’s counsel’s requested fees to be reasonable. In support of the motion for attorneys’ fees 

under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), Plaintiff’s counsel attached the contingent fee agreement which provided 

for a contingent fee of twenty-five percent of any awarded retroactive benefits. (Doc. No. 20-1.)

Plaintiff’s counsel accordingly accepted the risk of loss in the representation. Plaintiff’s counsel 

additionally expended a total of 21.2 hours of attorney time and 3.9 hours of paralegal time while 

representing Plaintiff before the District Court. (Doc. No. 20-4.) The requested fee amount represents 

approximately twenty-five percent of past-due benefits and is within the applicable maximum. As a 

result of counsel’s work, the matter was remanded for further proceedings before an Administrative 

Law Judge, who issued a fully favorable decision and awarded Plaintiff benefits. 

Plaintiff’s counsel provided a copy of the notice of award and the motion for attorney’s fees to 

Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 20). Although served with the motion, Plaintiff did not challenge the requested 

fees which attests to their reasonableness. Likewise, the Commissioner, in its advisory capacity, also 

declined to dispute the propriety of the amount of the fees requested by Plaintiff’s counsel. (Doc. No. 

22.)

Additionally, there is no indication counsel performed in a substandard manner or engaged in 

severe dilatory conduct to the extent that a reduction in fees is warranted. To the contrary, Plaintiff 

Case 1:16-cv-01756-BAM Document 23 Filed 06/09/20 Page 3 of 4
4

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

was able to secure a fully favorable decision and remand for further proceedings, including an award 

of past-due benefits. Accordingly, the Court finds the fees sought by counsel are reasonable in light 

the results achieved in this action, and the amount does not exceed twenty-five percent maximum 

permitted under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b).

IV. Conclusion and Order

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

1. Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (Doc. No. 20) 

is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff’s counsel is awarded $20,745.00 in attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

406(b); and

3. Plaintiff’s counsel shall compensate Plaintiff in the amount of $4,500.00 for fees

previously awarded pursuant to the EAJA.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01756-BAM Document 23 Filed 06/09/20 Page 4 of 4