Source: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arizona/azdce/2:2006cv02666/323058/55
Timestamp: 2018-06-25 10:28:21
Document Index: 410168827

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 406', '§ 406', '§ 402', '§ 406', 'art, 535', '§ 406', 'art, 439', '§ 406', '§ 406', '§ 406']

ORDER that Plaintiff's Attorney's 54 Motion for an Award of Attorney Fees Under 42 U for Pierce v. Astrue :: Justia Dockets & Filings
Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit Arizona Arizona District Court Pierce v. Astrue Filing 55
ORDER that Plaintiff's Attorney's 54 Motion for an Award of Attorney Fees Under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) is granted in the amount of $23,686.65. Counsel shall refund the previously awarded EAJA fee of $17,789.51 to Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 08/22/11. (ESL)
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social) ) Security Administration, ) ) Defendant. ) ) Anett C. Pierce, No. CV-06-02666-PHX-NVW ORDER 16 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Motion for an Award of Attorney Fees 17 18 Under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (Doc. 54). Defendant has not responded to Plaintiff’s motion. 19 I. Background 20 Plaintiff filed an application for Social Security Disability benefits on July 10, 2003, 21 which was denied initially and upon reconsideration. An administrative law judge affirmed 22 the denial of benefits, and this court affirmed the administrative law judge’s decision on 23 October 26, 2007. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the case for an award of 24 benefits. On remand, Plaintiff was awarded $94,746 in past due benefits, $22,144.50 of 25 which was withheld for payment of attorney fees (Doc. 54-1). On August 4, 2010, Plaintiff 26 sought $19,861.30 in attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) 27 (Doc. 44). The Court awarded $17,789.51 in fees and $805.00 in costs, for a total EAJA 28 award of $18,594.51 (Doc. 51). Plaintiff’s counsel now seeks an award of $23.686.65 under 1 42 U.S.C. § 402(b) (Doc. 54). 2 II. Discussion 3 Plaintiff retained counsel under a contingency fee agreement providing for payment 4 to counsel of twenty-five percent of the past due benefits awarded to Plaintiff. Under 42 5 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A), “[w]henever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant ... 6 who was represented before the court by an attorney, the court may determine and allow as 7 part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such representation, not in excess of 25 percent of 8 the total of the past-due benefits[.]” 9 contingent-fee agreements” that fall within the twenty-five percent statutory maximum, the 10 Court does “review for reasonableness fees yielded by those agreements.” Gisbrecht v. 11 Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 808 (2002). In determining whether the fee sought is “reasonable 12 for the services rendered[,]” id. at 807, the Court may consider the character of the 13 representation, the results achieved, performance, delay, and whether the benefits were 14 proportionate to the time spent on the case. Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1151 (9th 15 Cir. 2009). A reduction in fees may be warranted if the “benefits are large in comparison to 16 the amount of time counsel spent on the case[,]” or the attorney “is responsible for delay ... 17 so that the attorney will not profit from the accumulation of benefits during the pendency of 18 the case in court.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808. Although Section 406(b) “does not displace 19 Here, Plaintiff's counsel requests a § 406(b) award in the amount of $23,686.65. 20 Counsel performed 104.65 hours of work, which results in an hourly rate of $226.35. This 21 rate is not presumptively unreasonable; indeed, courts have found much higher hourly rates 22 to be reasonable. See, e.g., Grunseich v. Barnhart, 439 F. Supp. 2d 1032, 1035 (C.D. Cal. 23 2006) (awarding $600 hourly rate). In light of the contingency fee agreement, and 24 accounting for the risk inherent in contingency fee arrangements, the proportionality of the 25 award, and counsel’s successful representation of Plaintiff, the Court finds the amount sought 26 is reasonable. The Court will award Plaintiff $23,686.65 under § 406(b), which will be offset 27 by the previously awarded EAJA fee. See Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 796 (noting that although 28 -2- 1 Congress permits fee awards under both the EAJA and § 406(b), “the claimant’s attorney 2 must refund to the claimant the amount of the smaller fee”). 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Motion for an Award of 4 Attorney Fees Under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (Doc. 54) is granted in the amount of $23,686.65. 5 Counsel shall refund the previously awarded EAJA fee of $17,789.51 to Plaintiff. 6 DATED this 22nd day of August, 2011. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-