James S. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: December 22, 2025
• Docket: 3:21-cv-01832
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES S., Case No.: 21-cv-1832-RSH-MSB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION 13 v. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) 14 FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of

Social Security, 15 [ECF No. 20] Defendant. 16 17

18 Pending before the Court is a motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 19 406(b), filed by Plaintiff’s counsel. ECF No. 20. As set forth below, the Court grants the 20 motion. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 On October 28, 2021, Plaintiff filed this action seeking judicial review of the 23 Commissioner’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. ECF No. 1. On 24 April 5, 2023, following briefing on the merits, the Court vacated the Commissioner’s 25 denial of benefits and remanded the matter for further proceedings pursuant to sentence 26 four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). ECF No. 17. Thereafter, on joint motion of the Parties, the 27 Court entered an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act 28 1 (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), in the amount of $4,100. ECF No. 19. 2 On remand, the Commissioner granted Plaintiff’s application for benefits, and 3 awarded past-due benefits in the amount of $123,313. See ECF No. 20-4 at 4. The 4 Commissioner has withheld 25% of that amount, or $30,828.25, as potentially payable to 5 Plaintiff’s attorney. Id. 6 On October 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed his current fees motion. ECF No. 20. Plaintiff’s 7 attorneys seek an award of fees in the amount of $20,000, with those attorneys to reimburse 8 Plaintiff for the $4,100 in EAJA fees that the attorneys previously received. Id. at 5. 9 On December 5, 2025, the Commissioner filed a response. ECF No. 25. The 10 Commissioner notes that, “[a]lthough the motion for fees is filed under Plaintiff’s name, 11 his counsel … is the real party-in-interest, and the Commissioner has no direct financial 12 stake in the outcome of this motion.” Id. at 1–2. The Commissioner states that he therefore 13 “neither supports nor opposes” the motion. Id. at 2. Plaintiff has been provided notice of 14 the request for fees made by his attorneys in his name, ECF No. 20 at 2, and has not opposed 15 the request. See Docket. 16 II. LEGAL STANDARD 17 Under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), a court entering judgment in favor of a social security 18 claimant who was represented by an attorney “may determine and allow as part of its 19 judgment a reasonable fee for such representation, not in excess of 25 percent of the total 20 of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled by reason of such judgment ….” 21 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). “Within the 25 percent boundary ... the attorney for the 22 successful claimant must show that the fee sought is reasonable for the services rendered.” 23 Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002). “[A] district court charged with 24 determining a reasonable fee award under § 406(b)(1)(A) must respect ‘the primacy of 25 lawful attorney-client fee agreements,’ ‘looking first to the contingent-fee agreement, then 26 testing it for reasonableness.’” Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1148 (9th Cir. 2009) 27 (en banc) (quoting Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 793, 808). The court “first look[s] to the fee 28 agreement and then adjust[s] downward if the attorney provided substandard representation 1 or delayed the case, or if the requested fee would result in a windfall.” Id. at 1151. “The 2 court may properly reduce the fee for substandard performance, delay, or benefits that are 3 not in proportion to the time spent on the case.” Id. 4 An attorney’s fee award under § 406(b) is paid out of the claimant’s successful 5 recovery. Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 802. A court may award fees under § 406(b) to an attorney 6 who previously received fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. 7 § 2412. Parrish v. Comm’r of SSA, 698 F.3d 1215, 1218 (9th Cir. 2012). However, in order 8 to “maximize the award of past-due benefits to claimants and to avoid giving double 9 compensation to attorneys,” a lawyer is required to “offset any fees received under § 406(b) 10 with any award that the attorney receives under § 2412 if the two were for the ‘same 11 work.’” Id. (citing Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 796). 12 III. ANALYSIS 13 First, the Court determines that the contingent-fee arrangement in this case, ECF No. 14 20-2, which provides that Counsel will receive 25% of past-due benefits awarded after a 15 favorable decision, is within the statutory limit. See 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A); Crawford, 16 586 F.3d at 1147. Counsel entered into this agreement despite the risk of receiving little or 17 no recovery in the event of an unfavorable outcome. There is no evidence here of “fraud 18 or overreaching” in connection with the negotiation of the agreement. See Astrue, 586 F.3d 19 at 1145. Plaintiff was given the opportunity to oppose the fee motion but did not do so. 20 Second, the Court determines that the requested fees are reasonable. There is no 21 evidence in the record of substandard representation or undue delay caused by counsel. 22 Counsel has provided time records reflecting 18.6 hours spent on Plaintiff’s case at the 23 district court level. ECF No. 20-5 at 1–2. The requested fees of $20,000 amount to an 24 hourly rate of $1,075.27. Although this hourly rate is high, the work was performed on a 25 contingent-fee arrangement, and secured a favorable award for Plaintiff; and the rate falls 26 within the general range of fees found to be reasonable in similar cases. See Branch v. 27 Bisignano, No. 21-cv-785-KSC, 2025 WL 3238183, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2025) 28 (approving de facto hourly rate of $1,437); Roland S. v. Kijakazi, No. 3:20-CV-01068- 1 || AHG, 2023 WL 6966153, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2023) (approving de facto hourly rate 2 ||of $1,438.35); Desiree D. v. Saul, No. 3:19-CV-01522-RBM, 2021 WL 1564331, at *3 3 |(S.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2021) (approving de facto hourly rate of $1,494.34); Martinez v. Saul, 4 ||No. 15-CV-1994-BTM-BGS, 2019 WL 3322481, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 24, 2019) 5 ||(approving de facto hourly rate of $1,488.83). The Court concludes that the award would 6 || not be disproportionate or result in a windfall, and declines to adjust the award downward. 7 CONCLUSION 8 For the foregoing reasons, motion for fees [ECF No. 20] is GRANTED. The Court 9 |awards $20,000 to the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, Inc., CPC. The Court 10 ||} ORDERS counsel to reimburse James Michael Sisk in the amount of $4,100 for EAJA 11 || fees that counsel previously received. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 || Dated: December 22, 2025 ‘ 14 ¢ Howe 15 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28