Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01139/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01139-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brian Rector Clark
Plaintiff
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN RECTOR CLARK,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:22-cv-01139-SAB

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES 

PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)

(ECF No. 17)

Petitioner Francesco P. Benavides (“Counsel”), attorney for Brian Rector Clark 

(“Plaintiff”), filed the instant motion for attorney fees on November 26, 2024. Counsel requests 

fees in the amount of $14,000.00 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1). Plaintiff has not filed an 

opposition, or otherwise responded to the motion for fees. On December 10, 2024, Defendant 

Social Security Commissioner, as a de facto trustee for Plaintiff, filed a response to Petitioner’s 

motion providing an analysis of the fee request. 

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed a complaint challenging the denial of social security benefits on September 

7, 2022. (ECF No. 1.) On March 7, 2023, a stipulation for voluntary remand was filed. (ECF 

No. 14.) The Court entered judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and the action was remanded on March 

8, 2023. (ECF Nos. 12, 13.) On March 23, 2023, Plaintiff was awarded attorney fees pursuant 

Case 1:22-cv-01139-SAB Document 20 Filed 12/16/24 Page 1 of 5
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

to the EqualAccess to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (“EAJA”) in the amount of $6,461.12 at 

the stipulation of the parties. (ECF No. 16.) 

On remand, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was disabled as of January 11, 2018, and 

Plaintiff was awarded benefits in the amount of $112,306.00.

1

 (ECF No. 17-1 at 2; 17-2 at 7.) 

The Commissioner withheld $28,076.50 from the past-due benefits for attorney fees. This 

amount equals 25 percent of the retroactive benefit award. (ECF No. 17-1 at 4.) Petitioner has 

previously received payment of $6,461.12 in EAJA fees. (ECF No. 16.) In the instant motion, 

Petitioner seeks $14,000.00 for work performed in this action.

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

In relevant part, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A) provides that when a federal court “renders a 

judgment favorable to a claimant . . . who was represented before the court by an attorney,” the 

court may allow reasonable attorney fees “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.” The payment of such 

award comes directly from the claimant’s benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A).

The Supreme Court has explained that a district court reviews a petition for section 

406(b) fees “as an independent check” to assure that the contingency fee agreements between the 

claimant and the attorney will “yield reasonable results in particular cases.” Gisbrecht v. 

Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002). The district court must respect “the primacy of lawful 

attorney-client fee agreements,” and is to look first at the contingent-fee agreement, and then test 

it for reasonableness.” Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1148 (9th Cir. 2009). The twentyfive percent maximum fee is not an automatic entitlement, and courts are required to ensure that 

the requested fee is reasonable. Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808–09 (“§ 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”). Agreements seeking fees in 

excess of twenty-five percent of the past-due benefits awarded are not enforceable. Crawford, 

1 The award letter does not state the total amount of back benefits awarded, but does state that twenty five percent, 

or $28,076.50, was withheld from the past due benefits. (ECF No. 17-1 at 4.) This would make the total award 

$112,306.00 (4 x $28,076.50). 

Case 1:22-cv-01139-SAB Document 20 Filed 12/16/24 Page 2 of 5
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

586 F.3d at 1148. The attorney has the burden of demonstrating that the fees requested are 

reasonable. Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808; Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1148.

In determining the reasonableness of an award, the district court should consider the 

character of the representation and the results achieved. Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 800. Ultimately, 

an award of section 406(b) fees is offset by an award of attorney fees granted under the EAJA. 

Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 796.

The Ninth Circuit has identified several factors that a district court can examine under 

Gisbrecht in determining whether the fee was reasonable. In determining whether counsel met 

his burden to demonstrate that the requested fees are reasonable, the court may consider (1) the 

standard of performance of the attorney in representing the claimant; (2) whether the attorney 

exhibited dilatory conduct or caused excessive delay which resulted in an undue accumulation of 

past-due benefits; and (3) whether the requested fees are excessively large in relation to the 

benefits achieved when taking into consideration the risk assumed in these cases. Crawford, 586 

F.3d at 1151. 

III.

DISCUSSION

The Court has conducted an independent check to insure the reasonableness of the 

requested fees in relation to this action. Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807. Here, the fee agreement 

between Plaintiff and Petitioner provides for a fee “25% of the Claimant’s past due benefits

awarded to Claimant upon reversal of any unfavorable ALJ decision.” (Engagement and Fee

Agreement, ECF No. 17-3.) Plaintiff has been awarded benefits from January 11, 2018, through 

May 22, 2024 in the amount of $112,306.00. (ECF Nos. 17-1, 17-2.) In determining the 

reasonableness of the fees requested, the Court is to apply the test mandated by Gisbrecht.

There is no indication that a reduction of fees is warranted for substandard performance. 

Counsel is an experienced, competent attorney who secured a successful result for Plaintiff. 

Although this action does involve six years of backpay, there is no indication that Counsel was 

responsible for any substantial delay in the court proceedings. Plaintiff agreed to a 25 percent 

fee at the outset of the representation and Petitioner is seeking payment of $14,000.00, which is 

Case 1:22-cv-01139-SAB Document 20 Filed 12/16/24 Page 3 of 5
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

nearly 12.5% percent of the backpay award. The $14,00.00 fee is not excessively large in 

relation to the past-due award of $112,306.00. In making this determination, the Court 

recognizes the contingent nature of this case and Counsel’s assumption of the risk of going 

uncompensated. Hearn v. Barnhart, 262 F.Supp.2d 1033, 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2003).

In support of the motion, Petitioner submits a log of the time spent in prosecuting this 

action. (Time Sheet, ECF No. 17-4.) The log demonstrates that Petitioner spent 27.5 hours on 

this action. (Id.) When considering the total amount requested by Petitioner, the fee request 

translates to $509.09 per hour for Petitioner’s services in this action. In Crawford, the appellate 

court found that a fees much higher—$875 and $902 per hour for time of both attorneys and 

paralegals—were not excessive. Crawford, 486 F.3d at 1152 (dissenting opinion). Further, since 

Gisbrecht, courts note that reducing a fee request is dicey business and find fee awards much 

higher than this to be reasonable. Williams v. Berryhill, No. EDCV 15-919-KK, 2018 WL 

6333695, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2018) (awarding fee request that provides an hourly rate of 

$1,553.36 per hour); Coles v. Berryhill, No. EDCV 14-1488-KK, 2018 WL 3104502, at *3 (C.D. 

Cal. June 21, 2018) (effective hourly rate of $1,431.94 reasonable under the circumstances); 

Palos v. Colvin, No. CV 15-04261-DTB, 2016 WL 5110243, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2016) 

(fees sought translate to $1,546.39 per hour for attorney and paralegal services); see also Villa v. 

Astrue, No. CIVS-06-0846 GGH, 2010 WL 118454, at *1, n.1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2010) (“In 

practice, the more efficient counsel is in court, the higher will be the hourly fee amount 

represented in a § 406 fee award.”) 

The Court finds that the requested fees are reasonable when compared to the amount of 

work Petitioner performed in representing Plaintiff in court. Petitioner’s representation of the 

claimant resulted in the action being remanded for further proceedings and ultimately benefits 

were awarded. Petitioner’s detailed billing statement supports the request. (ECF No. 17-4.) 

The award of Section 406(b) fees is offset by any prior award of attorney fees granted 

under the EAJA. 28 U.S.C. § 2412; Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 796. In this instance, Petitioner has 

previously been awarded $6,461.12 in EAJA fees and the award of fees under Section 406(b) 

must be offset in that amount.

Case 1:22-cv-01139-SAB Document 20 Filed 12/16/24 Page 4 of 5
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

5

VI.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the fees sought by Petitioner pursuant to 

Section 406(b) are reasonable. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for an award of attorney fees pursuant to Section 406(b) in the 

amount of $14,000.00 is GRANTED; 

2. Pursuant to counsel’s request, this amount shall be paid directly to The Law 

Offices of Francisco Benavides, 1990 N. California Blvd., 8th Floor, Walnut 

Creek, CA 94596. The Commissioner is to remit to Plaintiff the remainder of his 

withheld benefits; and

3. Petitioner is ordered to refund $6,461.12 of the fees awarded to Plaintiff as an 

offset for EAJA fees previously awarded pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 16, 2024 

STANLEY A. BOONE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:22-cv-01139-SAB Document 20 Filed 12/16/24 Page 5 of 5