1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 J.G., Case No. 21-cv-03118-VKD
9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 10 v. ATTORNEYS’ FEES
11 FRANK BISIGNANO, Re: Dkt. No. 24 Defendant. 12
13 14 Katherine Siegfried, counsel for plaintiff J.G.,1 moves for an award of attorneys’ fees 15 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) after J.G. obtained an award of past-due benefits from the Social 16 Security Administration.2 Dkt. No. 24. Ms. Siegfried seeks $22,347.25 for her work representing 17 J.G. before this Court. Id. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants the motion. 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 This case arises out of J.G.’s applications for disability insurance benefits and 20 supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 21 §§ 423, 1381, et seq. See Dkt. No. 20 at 1. J.G.’s applications were denied initially and on 22 reconsideration. Id. at 2. An administrative law judge (“ALJ”) held a hearing and subsequently 23 issued an unfavorable decision on November 27, 2020. Id. The Appeals Council denied J.G.’s 24
25 1 Because opinions by the Court are more widely available than other filings, this order refers to the plaintiff only by his initials. This order does not alter the degree of public access to other 26 filings in this action provided by Rule 5.2(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Civil L.R. 5-1(c)(5)(B)(i). 27 1 request for review of the ALJ’s decision. Id. at 3. On April 28, 2021, J.G. filed this action 2 seeking judicial review of the decision denying his applications for benefits. Dkt. No. 1. 3 On February 16, 2023, the Court issued an order granting J.G.’s motion for summary 4 judgment, denying the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and remanding the 5 case for further administrative proceedings. Dkt. No. 20. The Court subsequently approved the 6 parties’ stipulation for an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $11,440 to J.G. pursuant to the 7 Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Dkt. No. 23. On remand from this 8 Court’s order, the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) concluded that J.G. is entitled to 9 receive past-due benefits in the amount of $89,389.00. Dkt. No. 24 at 1; see also Dkt. No. 24-5. 10 The agency withheld $22,347.25, representing 25% of J.G.’s past-due benefits, for the possible 11 payment of attorneys’ fees. Dkt. No. 24-5 at 4. 12 On April 22, 2021, prior to the filing of this appeal, J.G. and Ms. Siegfried entered into a 13 contingency fee agreement which provides for a fee of 25% of J.G.’s past-due benefits resulting 14 from a successful appeal. Dkt. No. 24-4. Ms. Siegried now seeks attorneys’ fees in the amount of 15 $22,347.25, representing 25% of J.G.’s overall award of past-due benefits, pursuant to 42 U.S.C 16 § 406(b) and her fee agreement with J.G. Dkt. No. 24. Ms. Siegfried acknowledges that she must 17 reimburse J.G. for the previous $11,440 EAJA fee award. Id. at 2. 18 The record indicates that Ms. Siegfried mailed and emailed copies of the present motion to 19 J.G. Dkt. No. 24-2 ¶¶ 9, 10. The Commissioner filed a timely response to Ms. Siegfried’s motion. 20 Dkt. No. 25. The Commissioner takes no position regarding the reasonableness of the requested 21 fee, but suggests that if the Court determines Ms. Siegfried is entitled to fees, it should direct Ms. 22 Siegfried to “reimburse [p]laintiff for any fees that counsel previously received under the EAJA.” 23 Id. at 2. The record indicates that the Commissioner mailed its response to J.G. on November 18, 24 2025. Id. at 3. The Court has received no objection or any other response from J.G., and the time 25 for submitting such papers has passed. See Civil L.R. 7-3. The motion is deemed suitable for 26 determination without oral argument. Civil L.R. 7-1(b). Upon consideration of the moving and 27 responding papers, the Court grants the motion for attorneys’ fees. 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 When a court renders judgment favorable to a claimant represented by an attorney, “the 3 court may determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such representation, not 4 in excess of 25 percent of the total of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled by 5 reason of such judgment[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). A court may award such fees even if the 6 court’s judgment did not immediately result in an award of past-due benefits. Butler v. Colvin, 7 No. 14-cv-02050-LB, 2017 WL 446290, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2017). Although a district court 8 may award fees under both the EAJA and § 406(b), “‘the claimant’s attorney must refund to the 9 claimant the amount of the smaller fee.’” Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1144 n.3 (9th Cir. 10 2009) (quoting Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002)). Section 406(b) applies only to 11 fees for representation in federal court—a separate provision allows the SSA to award fees for 12 representation in agency proceedings. See 42 U.S.C. § 406(a); Clark v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 1211, 13 1215 (9th Cir. 2008). 14 “Attorneys specializing in social security work ‘routinely enter into contingent-fee 15 agreements specifying that the fee will be 25% of any past-due benefits recovered, thus providing 16 the attorney the statutory maximum of fees if the representation is successful.’” Mercado v. Saul, 17 No. 16-cv-04200-BLF, 2020 WL 2512235, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2020) (quoting Crawford, 18 586 F.3d at 1147). Section 406(b) “does not displace contingent-fee agreements as the primary 19 means by which fees are set for successfully representing Social Security benefits claimants in 20 court.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807. “Rather, § 406(b) calls for court review of such arrangements 21 as an independent check, to assure that they yield reasonable results in particular cases.” Id. “The 22 statute does not specify how courts should determine whether a requested fee is reasonable” and 23 “provides only that the fee must not exceed 25% of the past-due benefits awarded.” Crawford, 24 586 F.3d at 1148; see also Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807 (“Congress has provided one boundary line: 25 Agreements are unenforceable to the extent that they provide for fees exceeding 25 percent of the 26 past-due benefits.”). The attorney seeking fees must show that the fees sought are reasonable for 27 the services rendered. Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807. 1 lawful attorney-client fee agreements,’ . . . ‘looking first to the contingent-fee agreement, then 2 testing it for reasonableness.’” Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1148, 1150 (quoting Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 3 793, 808). In this context, reasonableness does not depend on lodestar calculations, but upon “the 4 character of the representation and the results the representative achieved.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 5 808.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 J.G., Case No. 21-cv-03118-VKD
9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 10 v. ATTORNEYS’ FEES
11 FRANK BISIGNANO, Re: Dkt. No. 24 Defendant. 12
13 14 Katherine Siegfried, counsel for plaintiff J.G.,1 moves for an award of attorneys’ fees 15 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) after J.G. obtained an award of past-due benefits from the Social 16 Security Administration.2 Dkt. No. 24. Ms. Siegfried seeks $22,347.25 for her work representing 17 J.G. before this Court. Id. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants the motion. 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 This case arises out of J.G.’s applications for disability insurance benefits and 20 supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 21 §§ 423, 1381, et seq. See Dkt. No. 20 at 1. J.G.’s applications were denied initially and on 22 reconsideration. Id. at 2. An administrative law judge (“ALJ”) held a hearing and subsequently 23 issued an unfavorable decision on November 27, 2020. Id. The Appeals Council denied J.G.’s 24
25 1 Because opinions by the Court are more widely available than other filings, this order refers to the plaintiff only by his initials. This order does not alter the degree of public access to other 26 filings in this action provided by Rule 5.2(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Civil L.R. 5-1(c)(5)(B)(i). 27 1 request for review of the ALJ’s decision. Id. at 3. On April 28, 2021, J.G. filed this action 2 seeking judicial review of the decision denying his applications for benefits. Dkt. No. 1. 3 On February 16, 2023, the Court issued an order granting J.G.’s motion for summary 4 judgment, denying the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and remanding the 5 case for further administrative proceedings. Dkt. No. 20. The Court subsequently approved the 6 parties’ stipulation for an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $11,440 to J.G. pursuant to the 7 Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Dkt. No. 23. On remand from this 8 Court’s order, the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) concluded that J.G. is entitled to 9 receive past-due benefits in the amount of $89,389.00. Dkt. No. 24 at 1; see also Dkt. No. 24-5. 10 The agency withheld $22,347.25, representing 25% of J.G.’s past-due benefits, for the possible 11 payment of attorneys’ fees. Dkt. No. 24-5 at 4. 12 On April 22, 2021, prior to the filing of this appeal, J.G. and Ms. Siegfried entered into a 13 contingency fee agreement which provides for a fee of 25% of J.G.’s past-due benefits resulting 14 from a successful appeal. Dkt. No. 24-4. Ms. Siegried now seeks attorneys’ fees in the amount of 15 $22,347.25, representing 25% of J.G.’s overall award of past-due benefits, pursuant to 42 U.S.C 16 § 406(b) and her fee agreement with J.G. Dkt. No. 24. Ms. Siegfried acknowledges that she must 17 reimburse J.G. for the previous $11,440 EAJA fee award. Id. at 2. 18 The record indicates that Ms. Siegfried mailed and emailed copies of the present motion to 19 J.G. Dkt. No. 24-2 ¶¶ 9, 10. The Commissioner filed a timely response to Ms. Siegfried’s motion. 20 Dkt. No. 25. The Commissioner takes no position regarding the reasonableness of the requested 21 fee, but suggests that if the Court determines Ms. Siegfried is entitled to fees, it should direct Ms. 22 Siegfried to “reimburse [p]laintiff for any fees that counsel previously received under the EAJA.” 23 Id. at 2. The record indicates that the Commissioner mailed its response to J.G. on November 18, 24 2025. Id. at 3. The Court has received no objection or any other response from J.G., and the time 25 for submitting such papers has passed. See Civil L.R. 7-3. The motion is deemed suitable for 26 determination without oral argument. Civil L.R. 7-1(b). Upon consideration of the moving and 27 responding papers, the Court grants the motion for attorneys’ fees. 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 When a court renders judgment favorable to a claimant represented by an attorney, “the 3 court may determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such representation, not 4 in excess of 25 percent of the total of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled by 5 reason of such judgment[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). A court may award such fees even if the 6 court’s judgment did not immediately result in an award of past-due benefits. Butler v. Colvin, 7 No. 14-cv-02050-LB, 2017 WL 446290, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2017). Although a district court 8 may award fees under both the EAJA and § 406(b), “‘the claimant’s attorney must refund to the 9 claimant the amount of the smaller fee.’” Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1144 n.3 (9th Cir. 10 2009) (quoting Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002)). Section 406(b) applies only to 11 fees for representation in federal court—a separate provision allows the SSA to award fees for 12 representation in agency proceedings. See 42 U.S.C. § 406(a); Clark v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 1211, 13 1215 (9th Cir. 2008). 14 “Attorneys specializing in social security work ‘routinely enter into contingent-fee 15 agreements specifying that the fee will be 25% of any past-due benefits recovered, thus providing 16 the attorney the statutory maximum of fees if the representation is successful.’” Mercado v. Saul, 17 No. 16-cv-04200-BLF, 2020 WL 2512235, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2020) (quoting Crawford, 18 586 F.3d at 1147). Section 406(b) “does not displace contingent-fee agreements as the primary 19 means by which fees are set for successfully representing Social Security benefits claimants in 20 court.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807. “Rather, § 406(b) calls for court review of such arrangements 21 as an independent check, to assure that they yield reasonable results in particular cases.” Id. “The 22 statute does not specify how courts should determine whether a requested fee is reasonable” and 23 “provides only that the fee must not exceed 25% of the past-due benefits awarded.” Crawford, 24 586 F.3d at 1148; see also Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807 (“Congress has provided one boundary line: 25 Agreements are unenforceable to the extent that they provide for fees exceeding 25 percent of the 26 past-due benefits.”). The attorney seeking fees must show that the fees sought are reasonable for 27 the services rendered. Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807. 1 lawful attorney-client fee agreements,’ . . . ‘looking first to the contingent-fee agreement, then 2 testing it for reasonableness.’” Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1148, 1150 (quoting Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 3 793, 808). In this context, reasonableness does not depend on lodestar calculations, but upon “the 4 character of the representation and the results the representative achieved.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 5 808. Fees resulting from a contingent fee agreement are unreasonable and subject to reduction by 6 the court “if the attorney provided substandard representation or engaged in dilatory conduct in 7 order to increase the accrued amount of past-due benefits, or if the ‘benefits are large in 8 comparison to the amount of time counsel spent on the case.’” Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1148 9 (quoting Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808). Although the Supreme Court has “flatly rejected [a] lodestar 10 approach,” id., a court may require, “not as a basis for satellite litigation, but as an aid to the 11 court’s assessment of the reasonableness of the fee yielded by the fee agreement,” submission of 12 the requesting attorney’s records of the hours worked and normal hourly billing rate for 13 noncontingent fee cases. Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808. 14 Here, Ms. Siegfried has demonstrated that the requested fees are reasonable for the 15 services rendered. Her contingent-fee agreement with J.G. provides for fees within the 25% limit 16 imposed by § 406(b). Dkt. No. 24-4. Ms. Siegfried successfully pursued J.G.’s appeal in this 17 Court and obtained a favorable result in which J.G. will receive substantial past-due benefits 18 dating back to 2017. See Dkt. No. 24-5 at 1. Nothing in the record suggests that Ms. Siegfried’s 19 performance was substandard, or that she engaged in dilatory conduct in order to increase the 20 amount of fees to be awarded. See Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1148. 21 Although not dispositive, Ms. Siegfried’s time records indicate that she spent a total of 22 53.8 hours on this matter, yielding a de facto hourly rate of $415.38 which is less than the 23 $500/hour Ms. Siegfried says she charges in non-contingent fee matters. Dkt. No. 24 at 5; Dkt. 24 No. 24-2 ¶ 2. The hourly rate of $415.38 is well within the range of what courts have approved 25 under § 406(b). See generally Hearn v. Barnhart, 262 F. Supp. 2d 1033, 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2003) 26 (noting that in Social Security cases, courts have awarded fees based on de facto hourly rates 27 ranging from $187.55 to $694.44). Of the 53.8 hours Ms. Siegfried spent working on J.G.’s case 1 of the motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 24-3. The Court finds that the time spent on these 2 || matters is reasonable. 3 Moreover, the Court recognizes that Ms. Siegfried assumed a risk of not recovering fees by 4 || representing J.G. on a contingency basis. See Hearn, 262 F. Supp. 2d at 1037 (“The courts 5 recognize that basing a reasonableness determination on a simple hourly rate basis is inappropriate 6 || when an attorney is working pursuant to a reasonable contingency contract for which there runs a 7 substantial risk of loss.”’). 8 Accordingly, the Court finds that the requested fees are reasonable. The motion for fees is 9 granted. 10 || 11. CONCLUSION 11 Based on the foregoing, the motion for an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 12 § 406(b) is granted. The Court awards $22.347.25 in fees to Ms. Siegfried, which shall be paid 13 out of J.G.’s past-due benefits. Ms. Siegfried shall refund to J.G. the $11,440 in EAJA fees 14 || previously awarded. IT IS SO ORDERED. a 16 Dated: December 16, 2025
18 Uniapuin. wink, □□□□□□□ Virginia K. DeMarchi 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28