Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-04313/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-04313-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Defendant
Christine E. Cunningham
Plaintiff

Document Text:

ORDER (No. 3:10-cv-04313-LB) 

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 Francisco Division 

CHRISTINE E. CUNNINGHAM,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 3:10-cv-04313-LB 

ORDER REGARDING THE 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEY’S FEES AND 

CONTINUING HEARING 

[Re: ECF No. 28] 

The plaintiff Christine Cunningham filed this action seeking judicial review of the 

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s final decision denying her claims for 

supplemental social security income and disability insurance benefits. (Complaint, ECF No. 1.) 

On October 3, 2014, the court granted Ms. Cunningham’s motion for summary judgment, denied 

the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and remanded the action back to the 

Social Security Administration for an award of benefits. (10/3/2014 Order, ECF No. 23.) The 

court issued a judgment to that effect the same day. (10/3/2015 Judgment, ECF No. 24.) 

On December 15, 2014, Ms. Cunningham and the Commissioner filed a stipulation for the 

award of $6,750.00 in attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 

U.S.C. § 2412(d). (Stipulation, ECF No. 26.) The court granted the stipulation two days later. 

(12/17/2014 Order, ECF No. 27.) 

On September 25, 2015, Ms. Cunningham’s attorney, David Linden, filed a motion asking the 

Case 3:10-cv-04313-LB Document 31 Filed 10/26/15 Page 1 of 3
2 

ORDER (No. 3:10-cv-04313-LB) 

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 

court to award him $18,742.50 in attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). (Motion, ECF 

No. 28.) Essentially, Mr. Linden asks the court to award him this amount in fees based on his 

retainer agreement with Ms. Cunningham. 

The court has a few questions. 

First, it does not appear that Mr. Linden ever served Ms. Cunningham with the motion. Other 

courts in similar contexts require service on the plaintiff because the plaintiff is the party most 

likely to raise any objections to this type of motion. Thus, the court believes that requiring service 

upon Ms. Cunningham is appropriate. See Atkins v. Astrue, No. C 10-0180 PJH, 2012 WL 

5350265, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2012) (describing the plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to show that 

the plaintiff received notice of the plaintiff’s counsel’s motion under section 406(b) as a 

“deficiency” and denying the motion partly for this reason); cf. Zutis v. Colvin, No. C 12-01897 

WHA, 2015 WL 3766811, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2015) (noting that neither the plaintiff nor the 

Commissioner opposed the plaintiff’s counsel’s motion); 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 under section 406(b) on the plaintiff and that the plaintiff did not appear or file 

any objection to the motion). 

Second, although Mr. Linden states that “opposing counsel has authorized me to represent that 

the Commissioner takes no position on this motion,” the government has filed no statement to this 

effect. If this true, and even though Mr. Linden’s motion is not directed to the Commissioner, the 

court asks the Commissioner to file a statement of non-opposition. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-3(b). 

Third, the exhibits attached to Mr. Linden’s motion are not authenticated. They are not 

accompanied by a declaration, and the declarations that were submitted do not speak to them. (See

Wilborn Decl., ECF No. 28-5; Linden Decl., ECF No. 28-6.) This matters because the Mr. 

Linden’s motion hinges almost entirely on these exhibits, one of which purports to be a retainer 

agreement between Mr. Linden and Ms. Cunningham. 

For these reasons, the court orders the following to take place by November 3, 2015. 

First, Mr. Linden must serve Ms. Cunningham with his motion, any accompanying 

declarations, and this order. 

Case 3:10-cv-04313-LB Document 31 Filed 10/26/15 Page 2 of 3
3 

ORDER (No. 3:10-cv-04313-LB) 

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 

Second, the court asks the Commissioner to file a statement of non-opposition. 

Third, Mr. Linden must file a declaration (whether by him or a different declarant) sufficiently 

authenticating the exhibits attached to the motion. 

Fourth, in light of these directives, the court continues the hearing on Mr. Linden’s motion 

from October 29, 2015 to November 19, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom C. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 26, 2015 

______________________________________ 

LAUREL BEELER 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:10-cv-04313-LB Document 31 Filed 10/26/15 Page 3 of 3