1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9
10 MARK ANTHONY RAMIREZ, Case No. 1:22-cv-00324-SKO 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 12 v. COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO 13 FRANK BISIGNANO, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) Commissioner of Social Security1, 14 (Doc. 20) Defendant. / 15 16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 18 On January 6, 2026, Francesco Benevides (“Counsel”), counsel for Plaintiff Mark Anthony 19 Ramirez (“Plaintiff”), filed a motion for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) 20 (“section 406(b)”). (Doc. 20.) On April 6, 2026, the Court issued a minute order requiring Plaintiff 21 and the Commissioner to file their responses in opposition or statements of non-opposition to 22 Counsel’s motion, if any, in accordance with the Court’s Local Rules. (Doc. 21.) Plaintiff and the 23 Commissioner were served with a copy of the motion for attorney’s fees. (See Doc. 20 at 8; Docket.) 24 On April 17, 2026, the Commissioner filed a response, indicating that they “neither support[] 25 nor oppose[] counsel’s request for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b).” (See Doc. 24 at 1, 3.) 26
27 1 On May 6, 2025, Frank Bisignano was appointed the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. See https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/releases/2025/#2025-05-07. He is therefore substituted as the defendant in this action. 28 See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (referring to the “Commissioner’s Answer”); 20 C.F.R. § 422.210(d) (“the person holding the 1 Plaintiff did not file any objection to the motion by the deadline, and no reply brief was filed. (See 2 Docket.) 3 For the reasons set forth below, Counsel’s motion for an award of attorney’s fees is granted 4 in the amount of $8,800.00, subject to an offset of $7,300.00 in fees already awarded pursuant to 5 the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), on October 13, 2022 (see Doc. 19). 6 II. BACKGROUND 7 Plaintiff brought the underlying action seeking judicial review of a final administrative 8 decision denying his claim for disability benefits under the Social Security Act. (Doc. 1.) The 9 parties stipulated to voluntarily remand the case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) on 10 October 1, 2022, and judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff and against the Commissioner on 11 October 4, 2022. (Docs. 15, 16, 17.) On October 12, 2022, the parties stipulated to an award of 12 $7,300.00 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), 13 which was entered on October 13, 2022. (Docs. 18, 19.) 14 On remand, the Commissioner found Plaintiff disabled. (Doc. 20-2.) The Commissioner 15 issued a letter to Plaintiff dated August 17, 2025, approving his claim for benefits and awarding him 16 $87,259.00 in back payments. (See Doc. 18-1 at 3 (indicating a withholding of 25 percent of past 17 due benefits in the amount of $21,814.25).) On April 6, 2026, Counsel filed a motion for attorney’s 18 fees in the amount of $8,800.00. (Doc. 18.) It is Counsel’s section 406(b) motion for attorney’s 19 fees that is currently pending before the Court. 20 III. DISCUSSION 21 Pursuant to the Social Security Act, attorneys may seek a reasonable fee for cases in which 22 they have successfully represented social security claimants. Section 406(b) provides the following: 23 Whenever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant under this subchapter who was represented before the court by an attorney, the court may determine and 24 allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such representation, not in excess 25 of 25 percent of the total of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled by reason of such judgment, and the Commissioner of Social Security may . . . 26 certify the amount of such fee for payment to such attorney out of, and not in addition to, the amount of such past-due benefits . . . . 27 28 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A) (emphasis added). “In contrast to fees awarded under fee-shifting 1 provisions such as 42 U.S.C. § 1988, the fee is paid by the claimant out of the past-due benefits 2 awarded; the losing party is not responsible for payment.” Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1147 3 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (citing Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 802 (2002)). The 4 Commissioner has standing to challenge the award, despite that the section 406(b) attorney’s fee 5 award is not paid by the government. Craig v. Sec’y Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 864 F.2d 6 324, 328 (4th Cir. 1989), abrogated on other grounds in Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807. The goal of 7 fee awards under section 406(b) is to provide adequate incentive to represent claimants while 8 ensuring that the usually meager disability benefits received are not greatly depleted. Cotter v. 9 Bowen, 879 F.2d 359, 365 (8th Cir. 1989), abrogated on other grounds in Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 10 807. 11 The 25% maximum fee is not an automatic entitlement, and courts are required to ensure 12 that the requested fee is reasonable. Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808–09 (Section 406(b) does not displace 13 contingent-fee agreements within the statutory ceiling; instead, section 406(b) instructs courts to 14 review for reasonableness fees yielded by those agreements). “Within the 25 percent boundary . . . 15 the attorney for the successful claimant must show that the fee sought is reasonable for the services 16 rendered.” Id. at 807; see also Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1148 (holding that section 406(b) “does not 17 specify how courts should determine whether a requested fee is reasonable” but “provides only that 18 the fee must not exceed 25% of the past-due benefits awarded”). 19 Generally, “a district court charged with determining a reasonable fee award under 20 § 406(b)(1)(A) must respect ‘the primacy of lawful attorney-client fee arrangements,’ . . . ‘looking 21 first to the contingent-fee agreement, then testing it for reasonableness.’” Crawford, 586 F.3d at 22 1148 (quoting Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 793, 808).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9
10 MARK ANTHONY RAMIREZ, Case No. 1:22-cv-00324-SKO 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 12 v. COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO 13 FRANK BISIGNANO, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) Commissioner of Social Security1, 14 (Doc. 20) Defendant. / 15 16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 18 On January 6, 2026, Francesco Benevides (“Counsel”), counsel for Plaintiff Mark Anthony 19 Ramirez (“Plaintiff”), filed a motion for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) 20 (“section 406(b)”). (Doc. 20.) On April 6, 2026, the Court issued a minute order requiring Plaintiff 21 and the Commissioner to file their responses in opposition or statements of non-opposition to 22 Counsel’s motion, if any, in accordance with the Court’s Local Rules. (Doc. 21.) Plaintiff and the 23 Commissioner were served with a copy of the motion for attorney’s fees. (See Doc. 20 at 8; Docket.) 24 On April 17, 2026, the Commissioner filed a response, indicating that they “neither support[] 25 nor oppose[] counsel’s request for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b).” (See Doc. 24 at 1, 3.) 26
27 1 On May 6, 2025, Frank Bisignano was appointed the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. See https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/releases/2025/#2025-05-07. He is therefore substituted as the defendant in this action. 28 See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (referring to the “Commissioner’s Answer”); 20 C.F.R. § 422.210(d) (“the person holding the 1 Plaintiff did not file any objection to the motion by the deadline, and no reply brief was filed. (See 2 Docket.) 3 For the reasons set forth below, Counsel’s motion for an award of attorney’s fees is granted 4 in the amount of $8,800.00, subject to an offset of $7,300.00 in fees already awarded pursuant to 5 the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), on October 13, 2022 (see Doc. 19). 6 II. BACKGROUND 7 Plaintiff brought the underlying action seeking judicial review of a final administrative 8 decision denying his claim for disability benefits under the Social Security Act. (Doc. 1.) The 9 parties stipulated to voluntarily remand the case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) on 10 October 1, 2022, and judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff and against the Commissioner on 11 October 4, 2022. (Docs. 15, 16, 17.) On October 12, 2022, the parties stipulated to an award of 12 $7,300.00 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), 13 which was entered on October 13, 2022. (Docs. 18, 19.) 14 On remand, the Commissioner found Plaintiff disabled. (Doc. 20-2.) The Commissioner 15 issued a letter to Plaintiff dated August 17, 2025, approving his claim for benefits and awarding him 16 $87,259.00 in back payments. (See Doc. 18-1 at 3 (indicating a withholding of 25 percent of past 17 due benefits in the amount of $21,814.25).) On April 6, 2026, Counsel filed a motion for attorney’s 18 fees in the amount of $8,800.00. (Doc. 18.) It is Counsel’s section 406(b) motion for attorney’s 19 fees that is currently pending before the Court. 20 III. DISCUSSION 21 Pursuant to the Social Security Act, attorneys may seek a reasonable fee for cases in which 22 they have successfully represented social security claimants. Section 406(b) provides the following: 23 Whenever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant under this subchapter who was represented before the court by an attorney, the court may determine and 24 allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such representation, not in excess 25 of 25 percent of the total of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled by reason of such judgment, and the Commissioner of Social Security may . . . 26 certify the amount of such fee for payment to such attorney out of, and not in addition to, the amount of such past-due benefits . . . . 27 28 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A) (emphasis added). “In contrast to fees awarded under fee-shifting 1 provisions such as 42 U.S.C. § 1988, the fee is paid by the claimant out of the past-due benefits 2 awarded; the losing party is not responsible for payment.” Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1147 3 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (citing Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 802 (2002)). The 4 Commissioner has standing to challenge the award, despite that the section 406(b) attorney’s fee 5 award is not paid by the government. Craig v. Sec’y Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 864 F.2d 6 324, 328 (4th Cir. 1989), abrogated on other grounds in Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807. The goal of 7 fee awards under section 406(b) is to provide adequate incentive to represent claimants while 8 ensuring that the usually meager disability benefits received are not greatly depleted. Cotter v. 9 Bowen, 879 F.2d 359, 365 (8th Cir. 1989), abrogated on other grounds in Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 10 807. 11 The 25% maximum fee is not an automatic entitlement, and courts are required to ensure 12 that the requested fee is reasonable. Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808–09 (Section 406(b) does not displace 13 contingent-fee agreements within the statutory ceiling; instead, section 406(b) instructs courts to 14 review for reasonableness fees yielded by those agreements). “Within the 25 percent boundary . . . 15 the attorney for the successful claimant must show that the fee sought is reasonable for the services 16 rendered.” Id. at 807; see also Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1148 (holding that section 406(b) “does not 17 specify how courts should determine whether a requested fee is reasonable” but “provides only that 18 the fee must not exceed 25% of the past-due benefits awarded”). 19 Generally, “a district court charged with determining a reasonable fee award under 20 § 406(b)(1)(A) must respect ‘the primacy of lawful attorney-client fee arrangements,’ . . . ‘looking 21 first to the contingent-fee agreement, then testing it for reasonableness.’” Crawford, 586 F.3d at 22 1148 (quoting Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 793, 808). The United States Supreme Court has identified 23 several factors that may be considered in determining whether a fee award under a contingent-fee 24 agreement is unreasonable and therefore subject to reduction by the court: (1) the character of the 25 representation; (2) the results achieved by the representative; (3) whether the attorney engaged in 26 dilatory conduct in order to increase the accrued amount of past-due benefits; (4) whether the 27 benefits are large in comparison to the amount of time counsel spent on the case; and (5) the 28 attorney’s record of hours worked and counsel’s regular hourly billing charge for non-contingent 1 cases. Id. (citing Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807–08). 2 Here, the fee agreement between Plaintiff and Counsel, signed by both parties, provides: 3 The fee for successful prosecution of this matter is 25% of the Claimant’s past due benefits awarded to Claimant upon reversal of any unfavorable ALJ decision. 4 These fees are payable to Francesco Benavides for work completed before the District Court, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). If Francesco Benavides receives 5 any attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), he shall pay to Claimant any attorney 6 fees he previously received under the Equal Access to Justice Act. 7 (Doc. 20-3 (executed March 21, 2022).) 8 The Court has considered the character of Counsel’s representation of Plaintiff and the good 9 results achieved by Counsel, which included an award of benefits. Counsel and his associate spent 10 32.8 hours representing Plaintiff, ultimately gaining a favorable decision in that the Commissioner’s 11 decision was reversed and remanded to the agency for reconsideration. (Doc. 20-4 (time sheet 12 accounting for 5.4 hours spent by Counsel, and 32.8 total hours spent representing Plaintiff before 13 this Court).) There is no indication that a reduction of the award is warranted due to any substandard 14 performance by Counsel, as Counsel secured a successful result for Plaintiff. There is also no 15 evidence that Counsel engaged in any dilatory conduct resulting in delay. 16 Although the accepted range in the Fresno Division for attorneys like Counsel with ten to 17 twenty years of experience, (see Doc. 20 at 6), is between $250 and $325 per hour in non- 18 contingency cases, see Webb v. Cnty. of Stanislaus, No. 1:19-cv-01716-DAD-EPG, 2022 WL 19 446050, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2022), here the effective hourly rate requested equals $1,481.48 20 per hour for Counsel (average hourly rate for both Counsel and his associate of $268.29). (See Doc. 21 20-4; Doc. 20 at 4.) These hourly rates are not excessive when compared to what the Ninth Circuit 22 has approved in cases involving Social Security contingency fee arrangements. See Crawford, 586 23 F.3d 1142, 1153 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that the majority opinion found reasonable effective 24 hourly rates equaling $519, $875, and $902) (J. Clifton, concurring in part and dissenting in part); 25 see also Thomas v. Colvin, No. 1:11-cv-01291-SKO, 2015 WL 1529331, at *2−3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 26 2015) (upholding an effective hourly rate of $1,093.22 for 40.8 hours of work); Jamieson v. Astrue, 27 No. 1:09-cv-0490-LJO-DLB, 2011 WL 587096, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2011) (upholding an 28 effective hourly rate of $1,169.49 for 29.5 hours of work); Palos v. Colvin, No. CV 15-04261-DTB, 1 2016 WL 5110243, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2016) (upholding an effective hourly rate of $1,546.39 2 for 9.7 hours of work); Villa v. Astrue, No. CIV-S−06-0846-GGH, 2010 WL 118454, at *1−2 (E.D. 3 Cal. Jan. 7, 2010) (approving section 406(b) fees exceeding $1,000 per hour for 10.4 hours of work, 4 and noting that “[r]educing § 406(b) fees after Crawford is a dicey business”). Further, attorney’s 5 fees in the amount of $8,800.00 do not exceed—and, when added to the fees awarded under 42 6 U.S.C. § 406(a), are in fact less than—25% of the past-due benefits awarded (see Doc. 20 at 6, Doc. 7 20-1 at 1; Doc. 20-5) and are not excessive in relation to the past-due award. See generally Ortega 8 v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:12-cv-01030-AWI-SAB, 2015 WL 5021646, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9 21, 2015) (granting petition for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 406(b) in the amount 10 of $24,350.00); Thomas, 2015 WL 1529331, at *3 (granting petition for an award of attorney’s fees 11 pursuant to section 406(b) in the amount of $44,603.50); Boyle v. Colvin, No. 1:12-cv-00954–SMS, 12 2013 WL 6712552, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2013) (granting petition for an award of attorney’s fees 13 pursuant to section 406(b) in the amount of $20,577.57); Jamieson, 2011 WL 587096, at *2 14 (recommending an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 406(b) in the amount of $34,500). 15 In making this determination, the Court recognizes the contingent-fee nature of this case and 16 Counsel’s assumption of risk in agreeing to represent Plaintiff under such terms. “District courts 17 generally have been deferential to the terms of contingency fee contracts in § 406(b) cases.” Hearn 18 v. Barnhart, 262 F. Supp. 2d 1033, 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (“Because attorneys like Mr. Sackett 19 contend with a substantial risk of loss in Title II cases, an effective hourly rate of only $450 in 20 successful cases does not provide a basis for this court to lower the fee to avoid a ‘windfall.’” 21 (quoting Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807)). Attorneys who agree to represent claimants pursuant to a 22 contingent fee agreement assume the risk of receiving no compensation for their time and effort if 23 the action does not succeed. Id. Here, Counsel accepted substantial risk of loss in representing 24 Plaintiff, whose application had already been denied at the administrative level. Plaintiff agreed to 25 the contingent fee. (See Doc. 20-3.) Working efficiently and effectively, Counsel secured a 26 stipulated remand, and ultimately, the award of substantial benefits to Plaintiff. (See Docs. 15, 16, 27 20-1, 20-2.) 28 An award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 406(b) in the amount of $8,800.00 is, 1 therefore, appropriate. An award of section 406(b) fees, however, must be offset by any prior award 2 of attorney’s fees granted under the EAJA. 28 U.S.C. § 2412; Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 796. As 3 Plaintiff was previously awarded $7,300.00 in fees pursuant to the EAJA, Counsel shall refund this 4 amount to Plaintiff. 5 IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 6 For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that the fees sought by Counsel pursuant 7 to section 406(b) are reasonable. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 8 1. Counsel’s motion for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) in 9 the amount of $8,800.00 (Doc. 20) is granted; 10 2. Counsel shall refund to Plaintiff $7,300.00 of the section 406(b) fees awarded as an 11 offset for the EAJA fees previously awarded pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (Doc. 19); and 12 3. Counsel for Plaintiff shall file on the Court’s docket proof of service of this order 13 upon Plaintiff at his current or last known address. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15
16 Dated: May 4, 2026 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28