Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-03379/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-03379-6/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 (SSID)

---

ORDER (No. 3:11-cv-03379-LB)

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

SUSAN CAROL NIELSEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:11-cv-03379-LB 

ORDER GRANTING THE PLAINTIFF’S 

COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR

ATTORNEY’S FEES

Re: ECF No. 30

INTRODUCTION

In this Social Security appeal, the court previously granted in part the plaintiff’s motion for 

summary judgment and remanded the action to the Social Security Administration for further 

proceedings.1 On remand, she was awarded past-due benefits. Her counsel now seeks 25% of 

those benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) and the representation agreement with her.2Pursuant 

to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the court finds this matter suitable for determination without oral 

argument and vacates the November 3, 2016 hearing. The court grants the motion.

 

1

See Order — ECF No. 44. Record citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); 

pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents. 

2 Motion for Attorney’s Fees — ECF No. 48.

Case 3:11-cv-03379-LB Document 55 Filed 10/24/16 Page 1 of 3
2

ORDER (No. 3:11-cv-03379-LB)

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

Northern District of California

STATEMENT

The Commissioner withheld 25% of the retroactive benefits, or $19,472.25 (comprised of 

$5,095.25 plus $14,377).3The plaintiff’s attorney already received $13,062.67 in fees under the 

Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), which results in a net fee of $6,409.58.4

The plaintiff has a fee agreement with her lawyer that provides for a 25% section 406 

contingency fee.5The Commissioner does not oppose the fee award and takes no position 

regarding the reasonableness of the fees.6

ANALYSIS

42 U.S.C. § 406(b) provides, in relevant part, that “[w]henever a court renders a judgment 

favorable to a [social security] claimant . . . , the court may determine and allow as part of its 

judgment a reasonable fee” for the claimant’s counsel, which can be no more than 25% of the total 

of past-due benefits awarded to the claimant. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). A court may award such a 

fee even if the court’s judgment did not immediately result in an award of past-due benefits; where 

the court has rendered a judgment favorable to a claimant by reversing an earlier determination by 

an ALJ and remanding for further consideration, the court may calculate the 25% fee based upon 

any past-due benefits awarded on remand. See, e.g., Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir.

2009) (en banc).

In considering a motion for attorney’s fees under section 406(b), the court must review 

counsel’s request “as an independent check” to ensure that the contingency fee agreement 

“yield[s] reasonable results.” See Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002). Section 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.” Id. at 808–09. To 

evaluate the reasonableness of a fee request under section 406(b), the court should consider the 

 

3

See ECF No. 52-3 at 6, 13.

4 Motion — ECF No. 52 at 1, 4–5. 

5

Fee Agreement — ECF No. 52-1 at 1.

6 Defendant’s Statement of Non-Opposition — ECF No. 54.

Case 3:11-cv-03379-LB Document 55 Filed 10/24/16 Page 2 of 3
3

ORDER (No. 3:11-cv-03379-LB)

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

Northern District of California

character of the representation and the results achieved. Id. at 808; see also Crawford, 586 F.3d at 

1151. This includes analyzing whether substandard representation justifies awarding less than 

25% in fees; any delay in the proceedings attributable to the attorney requesting the fee; whether 

the benefits of the representation are out of proportion to time spent on the case; and the risk 

counsel assumed by accepting the case. See Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151–52 (citing Gisbrecht, 535 

U.S. at 808).

The court must offset an award of section 406(b) attorney’s fees by any award of fees granted 

under the EAJA. Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 796; Parrish v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 698 F.3d 1215, 1218 

(9th Cir. 2012).

The court finds that the fee request is reasonable. The 25% contingency fee agreement is 

within section 406(b)(1)(A)’s statutory ceiling. The work was reasonable given the favorable 

outcome and the time spent is not out of proportion to the fee award. 

CONCLUSION

The court finds that fees of $19,472.25 are reasonable under Section 406(b), reduces the award 

by the $13,062.67 in EAJA fees, and authorizes a net fee award of $6,409.58.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2016

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:11-cv-03379-LB Document 55 Filed 10/24/16 Page 3 of 3