Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-01688/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-01688-3/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRES RAMIREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-01688-EMC 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

Docket No. 27

I. INTRODUCTION

On January 6, 2014, this Court granted the stipulation of the parties seeking a sentence four 

remand of this Social Security action and entry of judgment. Docket No. 22. The parties then 

entered into a stipulation for the award of $5,292.66 in attorney‟s fees and expenses under the 

Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and the Court granted their stipulation on 

this issue. Docket No. 26.

The Social Security Administration found that Plaintiff Andres Ramirez became disabled 

on January 30, 2009, and was entitled to benefits, including past-due benefits of $51,259.00. 

Docket No. 27-2 at 3. The Administration withheld $12,814.75 (25% of the past-due benefits) for 

payment of attorney‟s fees. Id. On January 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for $12,814.75 in 

attorney‟s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), or $7,522.09 after crediting back to the client the 

$5,292.66 awarded under the EAJA. Docket No. 27 (Mot.). The government filed its nonopposition response to the request for fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), stating the standard for the 

award of attorney‟s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Docket No. 28 (Resp.). Plaintiff‟s counsel did 

not file a reply, and the Court subsequently issued an order requesting supplemental briefing 

addressing the Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002) factors for reasonableness, and to 

Case 3:13-cv-01688-EMC Document 31 Filed 02/29/16 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

attach the operative fee agreement and time records. Docket No. 29.

Having considered the papers and the supplemental briefing, the Court GRANTS

Plaintiff‟s motion for attorney‟s fees under section 406(b).

II. DISCUSSION

The award of attorney‟s fees in social security cases is governed by 42 U.S.C. § 406. 42 

U.S.C. § 406(b) governs fees for the representation of a claimant before the court. This section 

imposes a 25% cap on the amount that can be awarded to an attorney. In assessing the 

reasonableness of a fee request, the district court should not start with the lodestar calculation, but 

with the contingent-fee agreement, and consider “„the character of the representation and the 

results the representative achieved.‟” Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1151 (9th Cir. 2009) (en 

banc) (quoting Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808). The lower court may apply a downward adjustment in 

the event of “substandard performance, delay, or benefits that are not in proportion to the time 

spent on the case.” Id. (citing Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808).

In the instant case, Plaintiff entered into a contingency fee agreement entitling Plaintiff‟s 

counsel to 25% of the past-due benefits resulting from the claim. Docket No. 30-2. This 25% 

contingency fee agreement is within section 406(b)‟s statutory ceiling. The Court finds that the 

25% amount ($12,814.75) is reasonable given the character of the representation and the results 

achieved. There is no evidence of substandard performance, as Plaintiff‟s counsel successfully 

obtained a remand of the case. There is also no evidence of undue delay in litigating the case. 

Finally, there is no evidence that the benefits are not in proportion to the time spent on the case. 

Plaintiffs‟ counsel spent 32.3 hours on the case, resulting in an effective hourly rate of $396.74 

($12,814.75/32.3 hours). This amount is significantly lower than hourly rates that have been 

approved by the Ninth Circuit, and will not result in a windfall to Plaintiff‟s counsel. Compare 

with Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1145-46, 1152 (awarding $21,000 for 19.5 hours of attorney work and 

4.5 hours of paralegal work, $11,500 for 17.45 hours of attorney work and 4.7 hours of paralegal 

work, and $24,000 for 26.9 hours of attorney work and 2.6 hours of paralegal work). Further, 

such a rate takes into consideration the inherent risk of a contingent fee case. See id. at 1150 

(explaining that lodestar fees undercompensate attorneys for the risk in representing clients under 

Case 3:13-cv-01688-EMC Document 31 Filed 02/29/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

a contingent fee agreement).

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that counsel‟s request for $12,814.75 is 

reasonable. Because counsel was previously awarded $5,292.66 in attorney‟s fees under the 

EAJA, the Court awards $7,522.09 in attorney‟s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b).

This order disposes of Docket No. 27.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 29, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-01688-EMC Document 31 Filed 02/29/16 Page 3 of 3