Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02055/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02055-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

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 Sheri Leanne Qualls’ (“Plaintiff”) motion for 

attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b).2 (Doc. Nos. 20, 25.) The Commissioner of Social 

Security (the “Commissioner”) has filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion. (Doc. No. 27.) 

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 $7,985.68.

I. Relevant Background

The Cerney Kreuze & Lott, LLP entered into a written contingent fee agreement with Plaintiff 

dated December 23, 2014, which provided that “[i]f Attorney prevails before the Federal Court, and if 

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. 

2 Counsel for Plaintiff originally filed the motion on November 7, 2019, seeking fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

402(b) in the amount of $9,039.78 based upon an award of $44,702.46 in past due benefits. (Doc. No. 20.) On December 

20, 2019, counsel filed an amended motion seeking fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 402(b) in the amount of $7,985.68 based 

upon an award of $31, 972.73 in past due benefits. (Doc. No. 25.) According to counsel, the Commissioner originally 

provided a Notice of Award dated August 24, 2016 calculating Plaintiff’s past due benefits as $44,702.46. (Doc. No. 25-

1.) On December 16, 2019, the Commissioner issued a Notice of Award which calculated a “revised” past due benefit 

amount of $31,942.73. (Id.) Accordingly, counsel amended the motion to seek a lesser amount of attorneys’ fees based 

upon the new information from the Notice of Award dated December 16, 2019. (Id.)

SHERI LEANNE QUALLS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREW M. SAUL,1 Commissioner of 

Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-02055-BAM

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

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

§ 406(b)

(Doc. Nos. 20, 25)

Case 1:14-cv-02055-BAM Document 32 Filed 03/09/20 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

Claimant is subsequently awarded benefits by the Social Security Administration (“SSA”), Claimant 

agrees to pay Attorney a fee for Federal Court work equal to 25% of the past-due benefits.” (Doc. Nos. 

20-3, 25-4.) 

On December 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed this action seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s 

denial of benefits. (Doc. No. 1). The parties stipulated to a voluntary remand of the case for further 

administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which the Court approved

on August 24, 2015. (Doc. No. 16.) On November 18, 2015, the Court approved the parties’ 

stipulation to award Plaintiff $2,150.00 in attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 

28 U.S.C. § 2412 (the “EAJA”). (Doc. No. 19.) On remand, the Commissioner granted Plaintiff’s 

application for benefits and, on August 24, 2016, issued a notice indicating that Plaintiff was entitled to 

receive approximately $44,702.46 in retroactive benefits. (Doc. No. 20-2 at Ex. A; Doc. No. 25-1 at 

Ex. A.) On December 16, 2019, the Commissioner issued a notice indicating that Plaintiff’s “revised” 

retroactive benefits totaled $31,942.73 because the Commissioner found that Plaintiff met the nonmedical rules and not the medical requirements to receive Supplemental Security Income. (Doc. No. 

25-1 at Ex. B.)

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

of $7,985.68. (Doc. No. 25-1.) The Commissioner filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion 

requesting that any fee award include an instruction to counsel to compensate Plaintiff in the amount of 

EAJA fees already received. (Doc. No. 27.)

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 

Case 1:14-cv-02055-BAM Document 32 Filed 03/09/20 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

is 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 his 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. Nos. 20-3, 25-

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

additionally expended a total of 12.8 hours of attorney time while representing Plaintiff before the 

District Court. (Doc. Nos. 20-4, 25-5.) 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. Nos. 21, 26, 30.) Although served with the motion, Plaintiff did not challenge the 

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

capacity, declined to dispute the propriety of the amount of the fees requested by Plaintiff’s counsel. 

(Doc. No. 27.)

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 

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

Case 1:14-cv-02055-BAM Document 32 Filed 03/09/20 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

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, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), as amended

(Doc. Nos. 20, 25), is GRANTED;

3. Plaintiff’s counsel is awarded $7,985.68 in attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

406(b); and

5. Plaintiff’s counsel shall compensate Plaintiff in the amount of $2,150.00 for fees

previously awarded pursuant to the EAJA.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-02055-BAM Document 32 Filed 03/09/20 Page 4 of 4