Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02399/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02399-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES ROBERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C05-2399

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES

Plaintiff James Roberson timely applied for an award of

attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to

Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), for the time that

his attorney, Glenn M. Clark (“Clark”) expended before this

court requesting judicial review of the Commissioner's final

decision denying plaintiff disability insurance benefits under

Title II of the Social Security Act.

The Commissioner concedes that plaintiff is entitled to

an award of attorney's fees pursuant to EAJA. She argues,

however, that plaintiff's claimed hours are unreasonable and

excessive, and warrant a significant reduction. 

Case 3:05-cv-02399-BZ Document 19 Filed 02/14/06 Page 1 of 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

2

This court has discretion in determining the amount of a

fee award, including the reasonableness of the hours claimed

by the prevailing party. Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392,

1398 (9th Cir. 1992) citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S.

424, 437 (1983). Among the factors to be considered in

determining reasonable fee are the complexity of the case, the

novelty of the issues and the attorney's expertise and skill. 

See Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 69-70 (9th

Cir. 1975). In evaluating reasonableness, the court should

balance the two goals of the Equal Access to Justice Act:

ensuring adequate representation for those in need while

minimizing the costs of such representation to taxpayers. See

Hall v. Shalala, 50 F.3d 367, 369 (5th Cir. 1995). 

Clark claims to have spent 38.7 hours in seeking review

of the Commissioner's decision and 9.1 hours on this EAJA

claim, which would entitle plaintiff to $7636.53 in fees, plus

$250 in costs, totaling $7886.53. Plaintiff contends this is

in line with the time required by other attorneys in Social

Security cases, citing Patterson v. Apfel, 99 F.Supp.2d 1212

(C.D. Cal. 2000)(plaintiff's counsel reasonably expended 37.25

litigating the merits of the Social Security appeal, including

4 hours spent on oral argument and 3.5 hours litigating the

EAJA fee motion). 

The Commissioner contends that the claimed amount is

excessive and unreasonable. She claims that, unlike

Patterson, the sole issue warranting remand here concerned a

routine issue (whether Plaintiff could perform his past work)

and there was no reply brief or argument because the

Case 3:05-cv-02399-BZ Document 19 Filed 02/14/06 Page 2 of 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

3

Commissioner stipulated to a remand. She argues Clark should

be compensated for only two-thirds the amount claimed for the

underlying case and only 3.5 hours for the EAJA claim. 

The Patterson court surveyed several dozen social

security cases in which attorney's fees were awarded. The

hours approved ranged from 22.3 to 46.5 (excluding time for

further appeals). Patterson, 99 F.Supp.2d at 1214 n.2. The

court also noted that other district courts have found a

“twenty to forty hour benchmark” for social security fee

awards. Id. At the same time, Clark had an ethical duty to

familiarize himself with the facts of the case and “[s]ocial

security cases are fact-intensive and require careful

application of the law to the testimony and documentary

evidence.” Id. at 1213. 

The court finds that the hours expended on the motion for

summary judgment and motion for attorney’s fees were somewhat

excessive in light of the fact that the Commissioner

stipulated to remand and the case involved routine evaluation

of medical evidence and the severity of plaintiff’s

impairments. To bring the fees in line with other similar

cases, the 9.1 hours requested for the EAJA motion will be

reduced to 5.1 hours and the 30.8 hrs spent on drafting the

motion for remand will be reduced to 26.8.

Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs is

hereby GRANTED, with a slight reduction of fees, in the total

amount of $6,608.45. This represents attorney's fees in the

amount of $6,358.45, which is the product of $159.76

(statutory rate of $125.00 + $34.76 cost of living adjustment)

Case 3:05-cv-02399-BZ Document 19 Filed 02/14/06 Page 3 of 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

4

multiplied by 39.8 hours, plus $250.00 in costs. 

Dated: February 14, 2006

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\ROBERSON\atty fees.wpd

Case 3:05-cv-02399-BZ Document 19 Filed 02/14/06 Page 4 of 4