Spina v. Social Security Administration

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: June 13, 2023
• Docket: 5:19-cv-05171-BLF
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 DEANNA MICHELLE SPINA, Case No. 19-cv-05171-BLF

9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION 10 v. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) 11 KILOLO KIJAKAZI1, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, [Re: ECF 30] 12 Defendant. 13

14 15 16 Plaintiff’s counsel (“Counsel”) moves for attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) 17 following Plaintiff’s successful appeal of the denial of Social Security benefits. Counsel seeks an 18 award of $58,614.00, which is 25% of the past due benefits awarded to Plaintiff and her minor 19 child. Counsel’s motion is GRANTED for the reasons discussed below. 20 Plaintiff filed this action on August 19, 2019, seeking review of the denial of her 21 application for Period of Disability and Disability Insurance Benefits. See Compl., ECF 1. The 22 Court approved the parties’ stipulation to voluntary remand on April 15, 2023. See Order, ECF 23 20. Plaintiff obtained a favorable result on remand, obtaining awards of past due benefits to 24 herself and her minor child. See Notice of Award, ECF 30-3. Pursuant to a written fee agreement 25 between Plaintiff and Counsel, Counsel is entitled to 25% of past due benefits awarded to Plaintiff 26 and her family members. See Fee Agreement, ECF 30-2. 27 1 As is standard, the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) withheld 25% of the past due 2 benefits in order to pay any attorneys’ fees that might be owed. See Notice of Award. The SSA 3 calculated 25% of past due benefits to be $58,614.00, comprising $39,078.75 withheld from 4 Plaintiff’s award and $19,535.25 withheld from her minor child’s award. See id. Under 42 U.S.C. 5 § 406(b), a court entering judgment in favor of a Social Security claimant who was represented by 6 an attorney “may determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such 7 representation, not in excess of 25 percent of the total of the past-due benefits to which the 8 claimant is entitled by reason of such judgment.” 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). “The United States 9 Supreme Court has held that auxiliary back benefits (benefits payable to the claimant’s 10 dependents) are included in the total amount of back benefits to be considered for purposes of 11 attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b).” Arias v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:18-CV-02791- 12 KJN, 2020 WL 4923617, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2020) (citing Hopkins v. Cohen, 390 U.S. 530 13 (1968)). 14 The Court has conducted an “independent check” of the parties’ contingent fee agreement 15 to assure that the agreed-upon 25% of past due benefits is reasonable in this case. Gisbrecht v. 16 Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002) (“[Section] 406(b) calls for court review of such arrangements 17 as an independent check, to assure that they yield reasonable results in particular cases.”). 18 Counsel obtained a fully favorable benefits award, resulting an award of past due benefits in the 19 amount of $234,456 to Plaintiff and her dependent child. Nothing in the record suggests that 20 Counsel’s performance was substandard or that Counsel delayed proceedings in an effort to 21 increase the amount of fees awarded. To the contrary, Counsel was able to negotiate a stipulated 22 remand before completion of motion briefing, which reduced the time Counsel expended in 23 district court to 25 hours. See Trompeter Decl., ECF 30-5. 24 The requested fees award of $58,614.00 for 25 hours of work results in an effective hourly 25 rate of $2,344.56, which would not pass muster under the lodestar method. However, the 26 Supreme Court has held expressly that the lodestar method does not apply to an award of 27 attorneys’ fees under § 406(b). See Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 806-07 (“It is also unlikely that 1 benefits boundary, intended to install a lodestar method courts did not develop until some years 2 |} later.”). Courts in this district have approved contingent fee agreements resulting in similar hourly 3 rates in Social Security cases. See Brazile v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. C18-5914JLR, 2022 WL 4 503779, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 18, 2022) (collecting cases). Both the Government and Plaintiff 5 || were given notice of Counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees and neither has filed opposition. 6 Having considered all of the relevant circumstances, the Court finds it reasonable to award 7 Counsel attorneys’ fees in the amount of $58,614.00 pursuant to the contingent fee agreement 8 entered into by Plaintiff and Counsel. 9 Where attorneys’ fees have been awarded pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act 10 || (‘EAJA”), the EAJA fees must be offset against any fees awarded under § 406(b). See Gisbrecht, 11 535 US. at 796 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2412). “Under EAJA, a party prevailing against the United 12 States in court, including a successful Social Security benefits claimant, may be awarded fees 5 13 || payable by the United States if the Government’s position in the litigation was not ‘substantially 14 || justified.’” 7d. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2412). “Congress harmonized fees payable by the 15 Government under EAJA with fees payable under § 406(b) out of the claimant’s past-due Social a 16 Security benefits in this manner: Fee awards may be made under both prescriptions, but the 3 17 claimant’s attorney must refund to the claimant the amount of the smaller fee.” /d. (internal 18 quotation marks, citation, and alterations omitted). Counsel acknowledges that EAJA fees in the 19 amount of $5,200.00 were awarded in this action, and that she must refund that amount to 20 || Plaintiff. 21 ORDER 22 (1) Counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees under § 406(b) is GRANTED in the amount of 23 $58,614.00; and 24 (2) Counsel SHALL refund to Plaintiff the $5,200.00 in EAJA fees previously 25 awarded. 26 27 || Dated: June 13, 2023 food Mae) 4 BETH LABSON FREEMAN 28 United States District Judge