Maserang v. Saul

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: May 23, 2024
• Docket: 3:19-cv-02010
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Zscaquline M., Case No.: 19-cv-2010-DEB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO 14 MARTIN O’MALLEY, Acting 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) Commissioner of Social Security,1 15 Defendant. [DKT. NO. 26] 16

17 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 406(b). Dkt. No. 26. Neither Plaintiff nor the Commissioner oppose the Motion. 20 For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiff Zscaquline M. filed this action seeking review of the Commissioner of 23 Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) denial of her applications for disability insurance 24 benefits and Supplemental Security Income. Dkt. No. 1. The Court reversed the denial of 25 benefits and remanded the case for further proceedings. Dkt. No. 23. Pursuant to the 26 parties’ joint motion, the Court awarded Plaintiff $4,500 in attorney fees under the Equal 27 1 Martin O’Malley is substituted for Andrew Saul pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 28 1 Access for Justice Act (“EAJA”). Dkt. No. 25. 2 On remand, the Commissioner issued a decision favorable to Plaintiff and awarded 3 $202,192 in past-due disability insurance benefits. Dkt. No. 26 at 5, Dkt. No. 26-2. The 4 Commissioner withheld $50,548 from the past-due benefits in the event Plaintiff’s counsel 5 requested payment of fees. Dkt. No. 26-3 at 1. 6 II. LEGAL STANDARD 7 Section 406(b) of the Social Security Act governs counsel’s request for fees. Under 8 that provision, attorneys may seek “a reasonable fee” for cases in which they have 9 successfully represented Social Security claimants. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). This fee 10 cannot exceed “25 percent of the total of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is 11 entitled . . . .” Id.; see also Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002) (“Within the 12 25 percent [statutory] boundary . . ., the attorney for the successful claimant must show 13 that the fee sought is reasonable for the services rendered.”). 14 The Court “must ‘approach [§ 406(b)] fee determinations by looking first to the 15 contingent-fee agreement, then testing it for reasonableness.’” Crawford v. Astrue, 586 16 F.3d 1142, 1150 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (quoting Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808). In 17 evaluating the reasonableness of the fee award, the Court must consider “the character of 18 the representation and the results the representative achieved.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808 19 (citations omitted). The Court also “may properly reduce the fee for substandard 20 performance, delay, or benefits that are not in proportion to the time spent on the case.” 21 Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151 (citation omitted). 22 Finally, the Court must offset the § 406(b) fee award by any fees granted under the 23 EAJA. See Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 796 (“Fee awards may be made under both prescriptions 24 [i.e., the EAJA and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)], but the claimant’s attorney must ‘refun[d] to the 25 claimant the amount of the smaller fee.’”) (citation omitted). 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 Plaintiff’s counsel seeks $50,548 in attorney fees, offset by the $8,150 EAJA fees, 3 for a net award of $42,398.2 Dkt. No. 26 at 1, 5. The Court has conducted an independent 4 inquiry of the proposed fee award and finds it is reasonable and does not constitute a 5 windfall. 6 Plaintiff and counsel agreed to a contingent-fee agreement where counsel receives 7 25 percent of Plaintiff’s past-due benefits. Dkt. No. 26 at 8; Dkt. No. 26-1. Counsel is 8 requesting attorney fees of $50,548—the maximum allowed under the contingency 9 agreement and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Dkt. No. 26 at 10. Counsel’s representation resulted in 10 Plaintiff receiving a favorable decision and an award of past-due benefits. Counsel also 11 “assumed significant risk” in accepting this case, “including the risk that no benefits would 12 be awarded or that there would be a long court or administrative delay in resolving” the 13 case. Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1152; see also Moreno v. Berryhill, No. 13-8492-PLA, 2018 14 WL 3490777, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 19, 2018) (explaining the “risk of nonpayment inherent 15 in a contingency agreement”). 16 Finally, the Court does not find any reduction is warranted. See Crawford, 586 F.3d 17 at 1151 (“The court may properly reduce the fee for substandard performance, delay, or 18 benefits that are not in proportion to the time spent on the case.”) (citation omitted). There 19 is no evidence of substandard performance or delay, and the requested fees are “not 20 excessively large in relation to the benefits achieved” or the “time spent on the case.” Id. 21 // 22

23 2 This case is Plaintiff’s second appeal of the Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income. Dkt. No. 23 at 2. 24 Plaintiff’s counsel represented Plaintiff in both appeals. In her first appeal, the Court 25 granted $3,650 in EAJA fees. Maserang v. Berryhill, 16-cv-2098-BAS-MMD (S.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2017). In this (second) appeal, the Court granted $4,500 in EAJA fees. Dkt. No. 26 25. The Court must, therefore, offset $8,150 in EAJA fees. See Parrish v. Comm’r of Soc. 27 Sec. Admin., 698 F.3d 1215, 1221 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Where the same attorney represented a claimant at each stage of judicial review, the court need merely offset all EAJA awards 28 IV. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Motion for Fees 3 |! Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) in the amount of $50,548 (Dkt. No. 26). 4 The Commissioner is DIRECTED to certify payment of a fee award of $50,548, 5 made payable to the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohling, Inc., CPC, and delivered to 6 || Steven G. Rosales, out of Plaintiff’s past-due benefits in accordance with agency policy. 7 The Court further ORDERS Plaintiff's Counsel to refund Plaintiff $8,150 to offset 8 Il the EAJA fees previously awarded. ? IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: May 23, 2024 — Dok PT B Honorable Daniel E. Butcher United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28