Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02741/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02741-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:0405wc Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

1

12cv2741 AJB (KSC)

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

ROSEANNA SAVANNA HUNNICUTLOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No.: 12cv2741 AJB (KSC)

ORDER GRANTING AMENDED 

PETITION FOR ATTORNEY’S 

FEES UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)

(Doc. Nos. 23, 24) 

Plaintiff’s counsel filed a petition and amended petition for attorney’s fees 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) in the amount of $13,808.00. (Doc. Nos. 23, 24.) Plaintiff 

did not file an opposition. Defendant filed a response in its role as “trustee” for Plaintiff 

without indicating a position on the reasonableness of the request. (Doc. No. 25.) As set 

forth more fully below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s counsel’s petition for attorney’s 

fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). 

///

///

Case 3:12-cv-02741-AJB-KSC Document 28 Filed 11/18/15 Page 1 of 5
2

12cv2741 AJB (KSC)

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

BACKGROUND

On November 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking the Court’s review of 

the Commissioner’s decision to deny her benefits under the Social Security Act. (Doc. 

No. 1.) Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 15, 2013, (Doc. No. 10), and 

the Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on 

March 22, 2013, (Doc. No. 15). On February 28, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a 

report and recommendation recommending that the Court deny the Commissioner’s 

motion to dismiss and remand the case to the Social Security Administration for further 

proceedings. (See Doc. Nos. 21; 22 at 2.) The Court adopted the report and 

recommendation in full, denied the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss for lack of 

jurisdiction, and remanded the case for further proceedings. (Doc. No. 22.) 

On remand, the Social Security Administration determined Plaintiff became 

disabled on June 24, 2009, reversing its prior determination. (See Doc. No. 24-1.) 

Plaintiff was awarded $55,232.00 in past due benefits on July 5, 2015. (Id.; Doc. No. 24 

at 2.) Twenty-five percent of the award, $13,808.00, was withheld from the past due 

amount owed to Plaintiff for direct payment of attorney’s fees by the Social Security 

Administration. Plaintiff’s counsel filed the instant petition seeking that amount pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). 

DISCUSSION 

Sections 406(a) and (b) of Title II of the Social Security Act govern attorney’s fees 

for representation of disability claimants in front of the Commissioner and in federal 

court. 42 U.S.C. § 406(a) & (b). Section 406(a) governs fees for representation in 

administrative proceedings before the Commissioner. 42 U.S.C. § 406(a). Section 406(b) 

governs fees for representation in the federal courts, and provides in relevant part:

Whenever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant. . . 

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 past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled by 

Case 3:12-cv-02741-AJB-KSC Document 28 Filed 11/18/15 Page 2 of 5
3

12cv2741 AJB (KSC)

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

reason of such judgment. . . .

42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). The fee is payable “out of, and not in addition to, the 

amount of [the] past-due benefits.” Id. The United States Supreme Court has held that § 

406(b) does not override or displace attorney-client contingency fee agreements. 

Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 808–09 (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.”). Rather, § 406(b) 

instructs courts to review for reasonableness fees yielded by those agreements. Id. at 809; 

see also Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1148 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (quoting 

Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 793, 808) (“a district court charged with determining a reasonable 

fee award under § 406(b)(1)(A) must respect ‘the primacy of lawful attorney-client fee 

arrangements,’. . .‘looking first to the contingent-fee agreement, then testing it for 

reasonableness.’”) Therefore, courts must first look to the contingent-fee agreement, then 

determine whether the fees are reasonable. Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808. In determining 

whether fees are reasonable, attorney’s fees may be reduced based on “the character of 

the representation and the results the representative achieved.” Id. Fees may be subject to 

reduction if the attorney is responsible for delays or if the benefits are large in 

comparison to the amount of time counsel spent on the case. Id. Courts should also look 

at the attorney’s record of hours worked. Id. Section 406(b) requires the Court to conduct 

an independent check to assess the reasonableness of the fee request in light of the 

particular circumstances of the case. Id.

Plaintiff’s counsel argues his representation of Plaintiff before this Court was 

instrumental in her ultimate receipt of benefits, and that he is entitled to $13,808.00 of the 

past due benefits awarded to Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 24 ¶¶ 2, 6.) The Court has not awarded 

Plaintiff’s counsel fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. Plaintiff’s counsel relies on 

the contingent fee agreement entered into between Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, under 

which Plaintiff’s counsel is entitled to twenty-five percent of past due benefits received 

Case 3:12-cv-02741-AJB-KSC Document 28 Filed 11/18/15 Page 3 of 5
4

12cv2741 AJB (KSC)

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

by Plaintiff. (See Doc. No. 24-2 at 1.) Plaintiff’s counsel has included with his motion an 

itemization of time demonstrating that he spent a total of twenty-six hours working on 

Plaintiff’s case. Taking the total amount of the requested fee, $13,808.00, divided by the 

number of hours spent by Plaintiff’s counsel, establishes an effective hourly rate of 

approximately $531.00. 

Here, there is no indication that a reduction of fees is warranted due to any 

performance by counsel. The Court has considered the results achieved by Plaintiff’s 

counsel which include not only past-due benefits, but also future on-going benefits, 

making the value of the Commissioner’s favorable decision more than $272,000.00. 

(Doc. No. 24 ¶¶ 7, 8) (noting Plaintiff’s total lifetime award assuming continued 

disability until age 67 and eligibility for Medicare benefits). The work documented in 

Plaintiff’s counsel’s itemization of time also seems reasonable and proportional to the 

time spend on the case. The effective hourly rate is below those deemed reasonable by 

other courts. See Hearn v. Barnhart, 262 F. Supp. 2d 1033, 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2003); see 

also Coffman v. Comm’r of Social Security, No. CV131242, 2015 WL 5008847 (D. 

Oregon Aug. 20, 2015) ($643.40 per hour for 31.45 hours of work was reasonable); 

Knudsen v. Colvin, No. CV115093, 2015 WL 4205319 (C.D. Cal. July 10, 2015) (hourly 

rate of $973.78 for 26.7 hours of work was reasonable); Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1145–46, 

1153 (approving contingent fee awards that resulted in effective hourly rates of $875, 

$519 and $813.5 in 2009). In addition, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the 

attorney’s fee request. Therefore, after an independent review of the case, the Court 

concludes that the attorney’s fees sought by Plaintiff's counsel pursuant to § 406(b) are 

reasonable. See Hanes v. Colvin, No. 13CV2625, 2015 WL 5177768, at *1−3 (S.D. Cal. 

Sept. 3, 2015); Battle v. Astrue, No. 11CV829, 2015 WL 2180318, at *2−3 (S.D. Cal. 

May 7, 2015). 

///

///

Case 3:12-cv-02741-AJB-KSC Document 28 Filed 11/18/15 Page 4 of 5
5

12cv2741 AJB (KSC)

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

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s counsel’s amended 

motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) in the amount of $13,808.00.1

Defendant is directed to disburse the total withheld amount to Plaintiff’s counsel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 18, 2015

 

1 The only difference noted by the Court between Plaintiff’s counsel’s initial petition for 

attorney’s fees, (Doc. No. 23), and the amended petition (Doc. No. 24), is the inclusion of 

the contingency fee agreement and itemization of time as attachments, as well as a 

recognition that a copy of the amended petition for fees was provided to Plaintiff. (See

Doc. Nos. 23 at 3; 24 at 3.) 

Case 3:12-cv-02741-AJB-KSC Document 28 Filed 11/18/15 Page 5 of 5