Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20090623_0002648.CCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-02-21 05:47:47
Document Index: 726419494

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1383', '§ 406', '§ 406', 'art, 445', 'art, 262', 'art, 225', 'art, 242', 'art, 418']

| Clardy v. Astrue
Clardy v. Astrue
HARRY CLARDY, PLAINTIFF,v.MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, DEFENDANT.
On June 18, 2008, counsel for plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion and Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1383 (d)(2)(A) [406(b)], with a supporting memorandum of points and authorities and declaration by plaintiff's counsel, William M. Kuntz (collectively, the "Motion"). The Motion requests payment of attorney's fees in the total amount of $3,152.75 for 14 hours and 50 minutes of attorney time expended in this action before this Court. On June 27, 2008, defendant filed a Response to Plaintiff's Counsel's Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). For the following reasons, the Motion is granted.
Plaintiff's counsel represented plaintiff before the United States District Court pursuant to a contingency fee agreement ("Agreement"), which provides in Paragraph 3 that "client will pay attorney a fee equal to 25% of all past due benefits resulting from the favorable decision on this Social Security and/or SSI Disability claim." (Motion at 3, Declaration of William M. Kuntz ("Decl.") at ¶ 2, Exhibit 1.) On March 8, 2007, the Court remanded this case for further administrative proceedings. (Decl. ¶ 3, Exhibit 2A.) On remand, the Commissioner issued a decision granting plaintiff's application for benefits. (Motion at 3, Decl. ¶ 3, Exhibit 2B.) Plaintiff was subsequently awarded $40,611.00 in retroactive benefits. (Motion at 3, Decl. ¶ 4, Exhibit 3.) Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties and Order of this Court filed on June 11, 2007, plaintiff's counsel was awarded the sum of $2,423.00 in attorney's fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"). (Motion at 3.)
42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A).*fn1
Significantly, since Gisbrecht, district courts have been deferential to the terms of contingency contracts in Section 406(b) cases, recognizing that the resulting de facto hourly rates typically exceed those for non-contingency fee arrangements. See Ellick v. Barnhart, 445 F. Supp. 2d, 1166, 1169-71 (C.D. Cal. 2006)(surveying post-Gisbrecht cases and finding decisions approving fee awards involving range of net hourly rates of up to $982 per hour); Hearn v. Barnhart, 262 F. Supp. 2d 1033, 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2003)(awarding $25,132.50 in Section 406(b) fees, equivalent to $450 per hour, and citing, inter alia, Martin v. Barnhart, 225 F. Supp. 2d 704 (W.D. Va. 2002)(awarding $10,189.50, equivalent to $605 per hour), and Coppett v. Barnhart, 242 F. Supp. 2d 1380 (S.D. Ga. 2002)(awarding $6,554.12, equivalent to $350.49 per hour)); see also Mudd v. Barnhart, 418 F.3d 424, 427 (4th Cir. 2005)(affirming denial of motion challenging $12,231.50 fee award equivalent to 25% of past benefits and hourly rate of $736.84); Blizzard v. Astrue, 496 F. Supp. 2d 320, (S.D.N.Y. 2007)(approving $26,798.25 fee award equaling 25% ...