Pock v. Saul
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JAMES P., Case No. 19-cv-01354-JSC
10 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 11 v. ATTORNEY’S FEES WITHOUT PREJUDICE 12 ANDREW SAUL, Re: Dkt. No. 31 Defendant. 13
14 15 Plaintiff’s counsel, Harvey Sackett, moves for attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 16 406(b) for representing Plaintiff in his successful appeal of the Commissioner of the Social 17 Security Administration’s denial of social security disability benefits. (Dkt. No. 31.) The motion 18 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the reasons set forth below. 19 Under Section 406(b), a court must serve “as an independent check” of contingency fee 20 agreements “to assure that they yield reasonable results.” Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 21 807 (2002). The court’s review of a fee agreement is based on the character of the representation 22 and the results achieved, see Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808, and can include analyzing: whether 23 counsel provided substandard representation; any dilatory conduct by counsel to accumulate 24 additional fees; whether the requested fees are excessively large in relation to the benefits 25 achieved; and the risk counsel assumed by accepting the case. Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 26 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). As part of its reasonableness review, the “may require counsel 27 to submit a record of hours spent and a statement of normal hourly billing charges.” Id. at 1151. 1 motions are routinely supported by a declaration which identifies the number of hours spent 2 litigating the action. See, e.g., Ebido v. Kajakazi, No. 20-CV-04262-SVK, 2022 WL 14812645, at 3 *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2022); Monteith v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 18-CV-04481-DMR, 2021 WL 4 2435335, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2021); Young v. Berryhill, No. 18-CV-01721-DMR, 2021 WL 5 2417121, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2021); Gibbs v. Saul, No. 19-CV-06199-SK, 2021 WL 6 4980060, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2021). 7 Here, Mr. Sackett seeks $31,000 in attorney’s fee as compensation for his asserted 19.9 8 hours of work on this action. While Mr. Sackett attached several documents to his motion, 9 including an “Itemization of Services Rendered,” the documents are not accompanied by a 10 declaration attesting to their authenticity under oath. See Civ. L.R. 7-5(a). The Court thus issued 11 an order requiring Mr. Sackett to submit a supporting declaration attaching the documents on 12 which he relied. (Dkt. No. 33.) In response, Mr. Sackett filed a declaration stating that there are 13 “no extracts from depositions, interrogatory answers, requests for admission and other evidentiary 14 matters to support the underlying motion to authenticate those attached to the motion for 15 attorney’s fees” and “[t]he additional documents the documents speak for themselves.” (Dkt. No. 16 34 at ¶ 2.) 17 Local Rule 7-5(a) requires “[f]actual contentions made in support of or in opposition to 18 any motion [to] be supported by an affidavit or declaration and by appropriate references to the 19 record.” Mr. Sackett’s statements regarding the amount of time he spent on this matter are factual 20 contentions. (Dkt. No. 31-1 at 4 (“Sackett spent 19.9 hours of this case”) (citing Exhibit D).) The 21 “Itemization of Services Rendered” attached to the motion as Exhibit D neither lists Mr. Sackett as 22 the attorney who performed the work, nor is the accuracy of the time identified attested to under 23 oath. (Dkt. No. 31-5.) Instead, the top of the document inexplicably identifies “Donna Wade 24 Anderson,” who is counsel of record from the Office of the Regional Chief Counsel for the Social 25 Security Administration in this action. (Id.) Given the foregoing, the Court does not have 26 sufficient information from which it can assess the adequacy of the fees sought. 27 The motion for attorney’s fees is therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 1 This Order disposes of Docket No. 31. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: November 29, 2022 4 je □□ JACQUELYWNE SCOTT CORLEY 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12
© 15 16
= 17
Z 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
Pock v. Saul (Pock v. Saul) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.