Marisol Villalobos Mercado v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: November 10, 2025
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00423
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Marisol Villalobos Mercado, No. CV-20-00423-PHX-DJH

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 Plaintiff Marisol Villalobos Mercado (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion for an Award of 16 Attorney Fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (Doc. 33), seeking an award of $23,386.50. 17 Plaintiff’s Motion was backed by her Memorandum in Support. (See Doc. 34). The Social 18 Security Administration (“SSA”) Commissioner (the “Commissioner”) filed a Response 19 (Doc. 36) neither supporting nor opposing the award sought. 20 I. Background 21 Plaintiff filed Applications for Disability Insurance benefits and Supplemental 22 Security Income benefits on May 12, 2016, for a period of disability beginning on May 7, 23 2014. (R. at 19). Her claim was denied initially on August 5, 2016, and was then denied 24 on reconsideration in December of 2016. (Id.) Following a subsequent hearing, the ALJ 25 denied Plaintiff’s claims on January 25, 2019. (Id. at 19, 30). The Appeals Council denied 26 Plaintiff’s review request and adopted the ALJ’s decision as its final decision, prompting 27 Plaintiff to seek judicial review. (Id. at 1–3). On April 29, 2021, the Court reversed the 28 ALJ’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. (See Doc. 24). Despite 1 Defendant’s opposition (see Doc. 29), the Court also issued Plaintiff an award of 2 $10,558.29 in attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). (Doc. 31). 3 On remand, Plaintiff recovered past-due benefits in the amount of $93,546.00. 4 (Doc. 34-1 at 6). A portion of these benefits were withheld in case Plaintiff’s counsel 5 required payment. (Id.) Plaintiff’s counsel now seeks $23,386.50 in attorney fees. 6 II. Legal Standard 7 Section 4061 establishes “the exclusive regime for obtaining fees for successful 8 representation of Social Security benefits claimants.” Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 9 795–96 (2002). Section 406(b) provides that “[w]henever a court renders a judgment 10 favorable to a claimant . . . who was represented before the court by an attorney, the court 11 may determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such representation, 12 not in excess of 25 percent of the total of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is 13 entitled by reason of such judgment . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). Fees are payable out 14 of, and not in addition to, the amount of the past-due benefits. Id. Before awarding fees, 15 the Court must consider whether the 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) fee requested is (1) within the 16 statutory guidelines; (2) consistent with the fee agreement; and (3) reasonable in light of 17 the contingent-fee agreement. Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807–08. 18 III. Discussion 19 Plaintiff’s counsel is seeking $23,386.50 in § 496(b) fees. (Doc. 34 at 1). Upon 20 review of the Itemization of Services (Doc. 34-3), the time expended and the amounts 21 charged by Plaintiff’s counsel are reasonable in this case. First, the fees sought adhere to 22 § 406(b)’s guidelines. Plaintiff was awarded $93,546.00 in back past-due benefits, and the 23 requested $23,386.50 in attorney fees equals 25% of the award. Second, this amount is 24 consistent with the fee agreement which clearly states that Plaintiff’s attorney would be 25 entitled to 25% of past-due benefits. (Doc. 34-2 at 2). Lastly, the requested fee is 26 reasonable given the contingent-fee agreement because it reflects the nature of the 27 recovery. (Doc. 34 at 5). Plaintiff’s case had a substantial risk of loss because Plaintiff 28 1 Unless where otherwise noted, all Section references are to the Social Security Act. 1 || had been repeatedly denied on agency review before the initiating this civil action. (/d.). 2|| In sum, the Court finds that the amount requested is reasonable under Gisbrecht and will award Plaintiff $23,386.50 in § 406(b) fees. 4 Under the present circumstances, however, an offset is necessary. The Court || granted Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees under the EAJA and awarded fees in the 6|| amount of $10,558.29. (Docs. 26, 31 ($819.28 was deducted from the original amount 7\| requested by Plaintiff based on Defendant’s Response.)). When an attorney receives an 8 || award under § 406(b) and the EAJA, the attorney must refund to the client the smaller of 9|| the awards. See Parrish vy. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 698 F.3d 1215, 1221 (9th Cir. || 2012) (holding “[w]here the same attorney represented a claimant at each stage of judicial 11 || review, the court need merely offset all EAJA awards against the § 406(b) award”). Given the $23,386.50 award of § 406(b) fees to Plaintiff's counsel, the fees awarded under the 13 || EAJA here shall be refunded to Plaintiff. 14 Accordingly, 15 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees (Doc. 33) is granted under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Plaintiff's counsel Mark Caldwell is awarded $23,386.50 in attorney fees to be paid out of the sum from Plaintiffs past-due benefits. 18 || Payment is deliverable to counsel’s office: Mark Caldwell, PC, 8205 S. Priest Dr., PO Box 19|| 10446, Tempe, AZ 85284. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's counsel shall refund to Plaintiff the lesser of the fees awarded under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) and the Equal Access to Justice Act. 22 Dated this 7th day of November, 2025. 23 24 Ye □□ 25 norable’ Diang/4. Humetewa 26 United States District Judge 27 28

-3-