Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01030/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01030-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Lavon Ortega
Plaintiff

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

LAVON ORTEGA,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01030-AWI-SAB

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO 42 

U.S.C. § 406(b)

Petitioner Sengthiene Bosavanh (“Counsel”), attorney for Plaintiff Lavon Ortega 

(“Plaintiff”), filed the instant motion for attorney fees on June 12, 2015. Counsel requests fees in 

the amount of $24,350.00 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1). Plaintiff has not objected to the 

request. On August 13, 2015, 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 the instant complaint challenging the denial of social security benefits on 

June 25, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) On December 20, 2013, the magistrate judge’s order issued finding

that the ALJ erred in rejecting the opinion of an examining physician regarding Plaintiff’s hand 

limitations. (ECF No. 22.) On January 7, 2015, the district judge adopted the findings and 

Case 1:12-cv-01030-AWI-SAB Document 31 Filed 08/21/15 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

recommendations and this action was remanded for further proceedings. (ECF No. 24.) The 

Court entered judgment in Plaintiff’s favor on January 7, 2014. (ECF No. 25.) 

On remand, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was disabled as of June 2007, and past benefits 

were awarded in the amount of $121,400.00. (ECF No. 28-1 at 1.) The Commissioner withheld 

$6,000.00 from the past-due benefit for attorney fees. (ECF No. 28-1 at 4.) Generally, the 

Commissioner withholds 25 percent of the retroactive benefit award. (Id.) However, it appears 

in this instance that only the $6, 000.00 which was paid to Petitioner’s firm may have been

withheld. (Id.) 

In the instant motion, Petitioner seeks $24,350.00 for 39.6 hours spent working on 

Plaintiff’s case.

1

 

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). Agreements 

seeking fees in excess of twenty-five percent of the past-due benefits awarded are not 

enforceable. Crawford, 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.

 

1

Petitioner does not indicate the number of hours spent by Mr. Milan, the attorney who has already received payment 

from the Commissioner.

Case 1:12-cv-01030-AWI-SAB Document 31 Filed 08/21/15 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

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. 

28 U.S.C. § 2412. 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, 122 S.Ct. at 1828. Here, the fee agreement 

between Plaintiff and Petitioner provides for a fee consisting of “25 (twenty-five) percent of the 

past-due benefits resulting from my claim or claims.” (Social Security Employment Agreement, 

attached to Motion, ECF No. 28-2 at 2.) Plaintiff has been awarded benefits from June 2009 

through February 2015 in the amount of $121,400.00. (ECF No. 28-1 at 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 more than seven 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 $24,350.00 which

Case 1:12-cv-01030-AWI-SAB Document 31 Filed 08/21/15 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

added to the $6,000.00 already paid to Mr. Milan is 25 percent of the backpay award.2 The total 

fee award of $30,350.00, of which Petitioner is seeking $24,350.00, is not excessively large in 

relation to the past-due award of $121,400.00. 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).

When considering the total amount requested by Petitioner, the fee request translates to 

$614.90 per hour for Petitioner’s time. In Crawford the appellate court found that a fee of $875 

and $902 per hour, for time of both attorneys and paralegals, was not excessive. Crawford, 486 

F.3d at 1152 (dissenting opinion). 

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

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

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

were awarded. Counsel also submitted a detailed billing statement which supports her request. 

(ECF Nos. 28-3.) 

Finally, to the extent that the withheld fees are insufficient to cover all fees awarded at the 

administrative and court level, the claimant’s counsel must recover the difference from the 

claimant. Dobson v. Commissioner, No. 2:09-cv-01460-KJN, 2013 WL 6198185, at *4 (E.D. 

Cal. Nov. 27, 2013). 

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 $24,350.00 is GRANTED; and

2. If the amount of past-due benefits withheld is insufficient to cover all fees awarded 

at the administrative and court levels, Petitioner must recover the difference from 

 

2

The attorney fees total $30,350.00.

Case 1:12-cv-01030-AWI-SAB Document 31 Filed 08/21/15 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

the claimant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 21, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01030-AWI-SAB Document 31 Filed 08/21/15 Page 5 of 5