Jones v. Kijakazi

District Court, N.D. California·Decided August 20, 2024·No. 3:23-cv-03990·Unknown

Opinion

San Francisco Division J.Z., Case No. 20-cv-00154-LB

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING THE v. PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES Re: ECF No. 39 Defendant. The court previously granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and remanded the action to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings.1 On remand, the plaintiff received a past-due benefits award.2 Pursuant to the representation agreement with her client, the plaintiff’s counsel now seeks fees of $74,500.00, which is twenty-five percent of past-due benefits received and within the limit according to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b).3 The court can decide this matter without oral argument. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). The court grants the motion.

1 See Order – ECF No. 34. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (ECF); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents. Plaintiff’s counsel also represented the plaintiff in an earlier action before this court. See J.Z. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 3:17-cv-02715-LB. 2 Notice of Award – ECF No. 36 at 1–4. The Commissioner awarded the plaintiff $298,188.92.4 The court previously awarded $4,520.00 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) in this case as well as $4,799.00 in attorney’s fees under the EAJA in the plaintiff’s 2017 case against the Commissioner of Social Security.5 The plaintiff has a fee agreement with his lawyer that provides for a twenty-five percent contingency fee award as of the final decision, which makes $298,188.92 the relevant amount.6 The plaintiff’s attorney seeks $74,500.00 in fees, which is within twenty-five percent of $298,188.92. The Commissioner filed a response to the plaintiff’s counsel’s motion asking the court to consider the reasonableness of the fee award and order the plaintiff’s counsel to refund the EAJA fees to the plaintiff.7 The plaintiff’s counsel agreed that she will refund the EAJA fees.8 Under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), “[w]henever a court renders a judgment favorable to a [social security] claimant . . . , the court may determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee” for the claimant’s counsel, which can be no more than 25% of the total of past-due benefits awarded to the claimant. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). A court may award such a fee even if the court’s judgment did not immediately result in an award of past-due benefits; where the court has rendered a judgment favorable to a claimant by reversing an earlier determination by an ALJ and remanding for further consideration, the court may calculate the 25-percent fee based upon any 4 Mot. – ECF No. 39 at 7; Notice of Award – ECF No. 39-3; Comm’r.’s Response to Mot. – ECF No. 42. 5 Order – ECF No. 38; J.Z. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 3:17-cv-02715-LB, Order – ECF No. 38. 6 Representation Agreement – ECF No. 39-1. 7 Comm’r.’s Response to Mot. – ECF No. 42 at 2–3. past-due benefits awarded on remand. See, e.g., Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). In considering a motion for attorney’s fees under § 406(b), the court must review counsel’s request “as an independent check” to ensure that the contingency fee agreement “yield[s] reasonable results.” See Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002). Section 406(b) “does not displace contingent-fee agreements within the statutory ceiling; instead, § 406(b) instructs courts to review for reasonableness fees yielded by those agreements.” Id. at 808–09. To evaluate the reasonableness of a fee request under § 406(b), the court considers the character of the representation and the results achieved. Id. at 808; see also Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151. This includes analyzing whether substandard representation justifies awarding less than twenty-five percent in fees; any delay in the proceedings attributable to the attorney requesting the fee; whether the benefits of the representation are out of proportion to time spent on the case; and the risk counsel assumed by accepting the case. See Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151–52 (citing Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808). If an attorney “is responsible for delay. . . a reduction [of fees] is in order so that the attorney will not profit from the accumulation of benefits during the pendency of the case in court.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808 (cleaned up); see also Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151. The court must offset an award of § 406(b) attorney’s fees by any award of fees granted under the EAJA. Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 796; Parrish v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 698 F.3d 1215, 1218 (9th Cir. 2012). The twenty-five percent contingency-fee agreement is within 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A)’s statutory ceiling, and the amount is reasonable. Counsel’s work on the plaintiff’s cases before this court was not substandard; in fact, the plaintiff’s counsel succeeded in having both cases remanded to the Social Security Administration.9 She has not caused any delay in the proceedings. In addition, the time spent on work before this court — 44 attorney-hours and 6.3 paralegal-hours on both cases before this court — is not out of proportion to the fee award. See Crawford, 586

9 Order – ECF No. 34; J.Z. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 3:17-cv-02715-LB, Order – ECF No. 31. ] F.3d at 1145 (awarding $21,000 in fees where fees represented 19.5 attorney-hours and 4.5 2 paralegal-hours of work). 3 In short, the court finds that the plaintiffs counsels request for $74,500.00 in attorney’s fees is 4 reasonable. Because the plaintiff was previously awarded $9,319.00 in attorney’s fees under the 5 EAJA, and those fees were paid to the plaintiff's counsel, the attorney’s fees awarded here must be 6 offset by $9,319.00. Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 796; Parrish v. Comm’r. of Soc. Sec., 698 F.3d at 7 1218. Accordingly, the court concludes that the plaintiffs counsel is entitled to $65,181.00 in 8 attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). 9 11 The court grants the plaintiff's counsel’s motion and awards $65,181.00 in attorney’s fees 12 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: August 16, 2024 LAE LAUREL BEELER 17 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Jones v. Kijakazi, (N.D. Cal. 2024).

Jones v. Kijakazi (Jones v. Kijakazi) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gisbrecht v. Barnhart
535 U.S. 789 (Supreme Court, 2002)
Crawford v. Astrue
586 F.3d 1142 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)