Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02240/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02240-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:1383 Review of HHS Decision

---

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 JOSE DIVISION

LINDSEY TAYLOR HOPE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:13-cv-02240-HRL 

INTERIM ORDER RE MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEY'S FEES

Re: Dkt. No. 31

Lindsey Taylor Hope filed this action, seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s 

decision denying her application for Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Social

Security Act. The parties subsequently stipulated to remand the matter. Upon remand, this court 

is told that the Commissioner awarded Hope past-due benefits.

Linda Ziskin, Lindsey Hope’s counsel, moves for an award of fees for work performed by 

herself and by Hope’s other attorney, Cynthia Starkey.

1

 The Commissioner filed a statement 

purportedly taking no position as to the reasonableness of the requested fee, but noting several 

factors for the court’s consideration.2 First, the Commissioner points out that there is no 

 

1

The motion is based on 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), which governs fee awards in cases concerning 

claims for disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Nevertheless, Title XVI of 

the Act “incorporates § 406(b) by reference and applies in largely the same manner.” Mellon v. 

Astrue, No. C06-0638 EMC, 2008 WL 512720 at *1 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 25, 2008) (citing 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1383(d)(2)).

2

The Commissioner has no direct financial stake in the motion for fees, but instead “plays a part 

Case 5:13-cv-02240-HRL Document 34 Filed 09/06/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

indication that the fees motion was served on Hope. Second, the Commissioner notes that, while 

counsel claims to have spent approximately 31 hours on this matter, the documents appended to 

the motion show only that Starkey spent 2.6 hours on this case. Third, the Commissioner observes

that there are no declarations authenticating the documents submitted in support of the motion. In 

reply, Ziskin “declares, under penalty of perjury” that a document appended to the reply brief 

shows the time she spent on this matter. Additionally, Ziskin says that a copy of the motion 

papers was mailed to Hope in the ordinary course of business, but otherwise argues that there is no 

authority requiring service of the papers on Hope or the submission of formal declarations in 

support of the fees motion.

The Commissioner’s observations are well taken. Courts in this district require service of 

these kinds of motions on the claimants. See, e.g., Cunningham v. Astrue, No. 3:10-cv-04313-LB, 

2015 WL 6694097 at *1 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 3, 2015) (requiring counsel to serve his motion for fees 

on the claimant); Atkins v. Astrue, No. C 10-0180 PJH, 2012 WL 5350265, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 

29, 2012) (describing counsel’s failure to show that the plaintiff received notice of the fees motion

as a “deficiency” and denying the motion partly for this reason). Cf. Dellapietra v. Colvin, No. 

11-cv-04697-JCS, 2013 WL 5863017, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2013) (noting that the plaintiff’s 

counsel served the motion for fees on the plaintiff and that the plaintiff did not appear or file any 

objection to the motion). Additionally, courts have required supporting declarations, see

Cunningham, 2015 WL 6694097 at *1, which are particularly important for these types of motions 

that hinge almost entirely on the submitted exhibits.

Accordingly, no later than September 16, 2016, Hope’s counsel must file declaration(s)---

whether by Starkey, Ziskin, or a different declarant---(1) attesting to service of the motion papers 

and all supporting briefs and exhibits on Hope and (2) sufficiently authenticating the exhibits 

 

in the fee determination resembling that of a trustee for the claimants.” Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 

U.S. 799, 798 n.6 (2002); see also Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1144 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(same).

Case 5:13-cv-02240-HRL Document 34 Filed 09/06/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

submitted in support of the motion.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 6, 2016

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:13-cv-02240-HRL Document 34 Filed 09/06/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

5:13-cv-02240-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Alex Gene Tse alex.tse@usdoj.gov, kathy.terry@usdoj.gov, USACAN.SSA@usdoj.gov

April A. Alongi april.alongi@ssa.gov, sf.ogc.ndca@ssa.gov

Cynthia Gail Starkey cynthia@cynthiastarkey.com, loretta@cynthiastarkey.com

Jacob Mikow jacob.mikow@ssa.gov, april.alongi@ssa.gov, sf.ogc.ndca@ssa.gov

Linda Susan Ziskin ziskinlaw@comcast.net, linda@ziskinlawoffice.com

Case 5:13-cv-02240-HRL Document 34 Filed 09/06/16 Page 4 of 4