Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02227/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02227-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405id Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

15-CV-2227 W (RBB)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEX L. JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security 

Administration,

Defendant.

Case No.: 15-CV-2227 W (RBB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER 42 

U.S.C. § 406(b) [DOC. 24]

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s counsel Young Cho’s (“Counsel”) motion 

for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. §406(b). Counsel requests an order granting him 

$24,700.00 in fees, with a credit to Plaintiff for the EAJA fees previously paid in the 

amount of $4,200.00. On March 8, 2019, Defendant filed a response taking no position 

on the request, but providing an analysis of the fee requested. (See Def’s Response [Doc. 

25].) Plaintiff was served with the motion and notified that any response had to be filed 

within 14 days. (Notice of Mot. [Doc. 24] 2:3–10.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed a

response to Counsel’s attorney’s fee request. 

Case 3:15-cv-02227-W-RBB Document 26 Filed 04/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

15-CV-2227 W (RBB)

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

The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted, and without oral argument. 

See Civ.L.R. 7.1.d. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion [Doc. 24].

I. DISCUSSION

Section 406(b) provides, in relevant part:

Whenever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant under this 

subchapter 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 . . . .

Id. “In contrast to fees awarded under fee-shifting provisions such as 42 U.S.C. § 1988, 

the fee is paid by the claimant out of the past-due benefits awarded; the losing party is not 

responsible for payment.” Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1147 (9th Cir.2009) (en 

banc) (citing Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 802, (2002)). “The goal of fee awards 

under section 460(b) is to provide adequate incentive to represent claimants while 

ensuring that the usually meager disability benefits received are not greatly depleted.” 

Thomas v. Colvin, 2015 WL 1529331, *1 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (citing Cotter v. Bowen, 879 

F.2d 359, 365 (8th Cir.1989), abrogated on other grounds in Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807).

In evaluating an attorney’s fee request, courts “must respect ‘the primacy of lawful 

attorney-client fee arrangements,’ ... ‘looking first to the contingent-fee agreement, then 

testing for reasonableness.’” Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1148 (quoting Gilbrecht, 535 U.S. at 

793, 808). Factors courts may consider in evaluating the reasonableness of the attorney 

fee award are: (1) the character of the representation; (2) the results achieved; (3) whether 

the attorney engaged in dilatory conduct; (4) whether the benefits are large in comparison 

to the amount of time counsel spent on the case; and (5) the attorney’s record of hours 

worked and counsel's regular hourly billing charge for non-contingent cases. Thomas, 

2015 WL 1529331, *2 (citing Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1148). 

Case 3:15-cv-02227-W-RBB Document 26 Filed 04/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

15-CV-2227 W (RBB)

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

Here, Counsel was successful in obtaining a favorable decision for Plaintiff in this 

Court, which granted Plaintiff’s summary-judgment motion, denied Defendant’s 

summary-judgment motion and remanded the case to the Social Security Administration 

for further proceedings. (Order [Doc. 20] 3:1–5.) On remand, the Commissioner granted 

Plaintiff’s application for benefits, entitling him to receive $98,802.52 in retroactive 

benefits. (Cho Decl. [Doc. 24-1] ¶¶ 3, 4, citing Ex. 2 [Doc. 24-3] and Ex. 3 [Doc. 24-4].) 

Thus, no reduction is warranted due to a substandard performance, nor is there any basis 

to reduce fees based on dilatory conduct as there is no indication Counsel caused any 

excessive delay. Additionally, the Court has reviewed the amount of time spent on this 

matter, Counsel’s experience, and the United States Consumer Law Attorney Fee Survey 

Report 2015–2016. (See Cho Decl., ¶¶ 5, 6, Ex. 4 [Doc. 24-5] and Ex. 5 [Doc. 24-6].) 

Considering all these factors, the Court finds the effective hourly rate is consistent with 

the market and the work on this matter reasonable.

II. CONCLUSION & ORDER

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Counsel’s motion for attorney’s

fees [Doc. 24] and ORDERS as follows:

1. Counsel is AWARDED $24,700.00 in attorney’s fees.

2. Counsel shall reimburse Plaintiff Alex L. Jackson $4,200 for the EAJA fees 

previously paid.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2019

Case 3:15-cv-02227-W-RBB Document 26 Filed 04/03/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3