Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-02448/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-02448-5/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 (DIWC)

---

1 

 NO. C 07‐02448 RS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES 

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

For the Northern District of California 

 *E-Filed 02/05/2010*

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

ROBERTA L. SAXTON, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, 

Commissioner, 

Social Security Administration, 

 

 Defendant. 

____________________________________/

No. C 07-02448 RS 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEY FEES 

I. INTRODUCTION 

 Plaintiff Roberta L. Saxton filed an application for Social Security disability insurance 

benefits in 2004. Her application was initially denied, and she sought review in this Court. In 

February 2008, the Court approved a stipulated remand for further proceedings. On remand, the 

Administrative Law Judge found that Saxton was in fact disabled. As a result of this decision, 

Saxton received a total of $61,095.00 in retroactive benefits, of which $15,273.75, or 25%, was 

withheld for potential attorney fees. In April 2008, the Court awarded $4,900.00 in attorney fees 

under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). Saxton’s attorney Harvey P. Sackett now moves 

to recover the remainder of his fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). 

Case 5:07-cv-02448-RS Document 28 Filed 02/05/10 Page 1 of 3
2 

 NO. C 07‐02448 RS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES 

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

For the Northern District of California 

Under the terms of the contract between Saxton and Mr. Sackett, Mr. Sackett may receive a 

fee up to 25% of the past-due benefits for a favorable decision occurring after the initial hearing. 

The instant motion requests attorney fees equal to the full 25%, less the $4900.00 already disbursed 

to him under the EAJA. The net payment from Saxton’s benefits award would therefore be 

$10,373.75. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

 Section 206(b) of the Social Security Act provides that “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.” 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). 

 This fee derives from funds withheld by the Social Security Administration from the pastdue benefits payment. The Supreme Court has instructed courts to utilize the attorney-client fee 

agreement as a baseline when considering a fee motion under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Gisbrecht v. 

Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807-808 (2002). Courts must then review such fee agreements “as an 

independent check, to assure that they yield reasonable results in particular cases.” Id. at 807. 

Specifically, the district court is to analyze the attorney’s recovery “based on the character of the 

representation and the results the representative achieved.” The burden is on the attorney seeking 

fees to “show that the fee sought is reasonable for the services rendered.” Id. 

Gisbrecht identifies at least three examples of when a court-imposed fee reduction may be 

warranted. Id. at 807-08; see also Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1151-52 (2009) (listing these 

three circumstances and demonstrating how to analyze whether each circumstance exists, based on 

the facts). First, the fee may be reduced if the attorney’s representation is substandard. Gisbrecht, 

535 at 808. Second, if “the attorney is responsible for delay . . . a reduction is in order so that the 

attorney will not profit from the accumulation of benefits during the pendency of the case in court.” 

Id. Third, if “the benefits are large in comparison to the amount of time counsel spent on the case, a 

downward adjustment is similarly in order.” Id. Gisbrecht authorized courts to consider evidence of 

the hours incurred and the hourly rates normally charged in non-contingent matters, “as an aid to the 

Case 5:07-cv-02448-RS Document 28 Filed 02/05/10 Page 2 of 3
3 

 NO. C 07‐02448 RS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES 

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

For the Northern District of California 

court’s assessment of the reasonableness of the fee yielded by the fee agreement,” but cautioned that 

such an inquiry should not rise to the level of “satellite litigation” over fees. Id. Finally, the award 

of fees must be offset by any previous award of EAJA attorney fees. 28 U.S.C § 406(b)(1)(A); 

Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 796. 

III. DISCUSSION 

 In light of the entire record here, the Court concludes that the requested fee in the full 

amount of 25% of the recovery, as provided in the fee agreement, is reasonable.1 There is no 

evidence of substandard work or delay by Mr. Sackett; nor is there evidence of a particularly large 

award resulting from an unusually small amount of work. Mr. Sackett amassed 30.6 hours on the 

case, plus 3.0 hours of paralegal time, resulting in an effective hourly rate of $488.75 for attorney 

time and $106.00 for paralegal time. These amounts are within the bounds of reasonableness 

considering Mr. Sackett’s experience and expertise, as well as the risks posed by the contingent 

nature of the representation. Futhermore, no other basis appears that would warrant reducing the 

fees below the rate set by the contract. Accordingly, the motion will be granted. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons set forth above, the motion is granted. Plaintiff’s counsel shall collect 

$10,373.75 in attorney fees. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 02/05/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

1

 In response to the motion, the Commissioner filed a brief taking no position on the 

reasonableness of the fee request, but providing legal and factual analysis designed to facilitate the 

Court’s evaluation of the request. 

Case 5:07-cv-02448-RS Document 28 Filed 02/05/10 Page 3 of 3