(SS) Hall v. Commissioner of Social Security

E.D. California

(SS) Hall v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedApril 29, 2024

Docket1:20-cv-01635

StatusUnknown

This text of (SS) Hall v. Commissioner of Social Security ((SS) Hall v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(SS) Hall v. Commissioner of Social Security, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALISON M. HALL, Case No. 1:20-cv-01635-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES PURSUANT TO 42 13 v. U.S.C. § 406(b)2

14 MARTIN O’MALLEY, (Doc. No. 29) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 15 SECURITY,1 ORDER FOR CLERK TO MAIL A COPY OF ORDER TO PLAINTIFF 16 Defendant.

17 18 Jared T. Walker (“Counsel”) of the Law Office of Jared T. Walker, PC, attorney for 19 Alison M. Hall (“Plaintiff”), filed a motion seeking attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) 20 on April 4, 2024. (Doc. No. 29). Plaintiff was served with the motion and advised she had 14 21 days to object. (Id. at 2). No opposition has been filed as of the date of this Order. (See docket). 22 For the reasons set forth below, the motion for attorney’s fees is granted in the amount of 23 $18,512.00 subject to an offset of $8,600.00 in fees previously awarded on December 7, 2022, 24 under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). (Doc. No. 29). 25 1 The Court has substituted Martin O’Malley, who has been appointed the Acting Commissioner of Social 26 Security, as the defendant in this suit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 2 Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 27 §636(c)(1). (Doc. No. 10).

28 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 On November 17, 2020, Plaintiff brought the underlying action seeking judicial review of 3 a final administrative decision denying Plaintiff’s claim for disability insurance benefits under the 4 Social Security Act. (Doc. No. 1). On September 6, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion 5 for summary judgment and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 6 Nos. 19, 23). The Court entered an award of $8,600.00 for attorney fees under the Equal Access 7 to Justice Act (“EAJA”) on December 7, 2022. (Doc. Nos. 27, 28). 8 Upon remand, the Commissioner awarded $74,048.00 in retroactive benefits to Plaintiff.3 9 (Doc. No. 29-2 at 1). On April 4, 2024, Counsel filed this motion for attorney’s fees in the 10 amount of $18,512.00, with an offset of $8,600.00 for EAJA fees already awarded. (Doc. No. 11 29). Counsel argues these fees are reasonable because the contingency fee agreement, which 12 Plaintiff signed, permits Counsel to retain 25% of the past-due benefits, and the requested amount 13 is reasonable. (Doc. No. 29; Doc. No. 29-1). Defendant filed no opposition to the request, and 14 the deadline for doing so has passed. See Local Rule 230. 15 II. APPLICABLE LAW 16 Attorneys may seek a reasonable fee under the Social Security Act for cases in which they 17 have successfully represented social security claimants. Section 406(b) allows:

18 Whenever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant under this subchapter who was represented before the court by an attorney, 19 the court may determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such representation, not in excess of 25 percent of 20 the total of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled . . .. 21 22 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). Counsel for a plaintiff may recover attorneys’ fees under both 42 23 U.S.C. § 406(b) and EAJA. Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002). Counsel, however, 24 must refund to the plaintiff the amount of the smaller fee. Id. 25 Fees in social security cases “are usually set in contingency-fee agreements and are 26

27 3 Plaintiff did not provide a citation to this amount in the notice of award; rather, Plaintiff calculates the total amount of past-due benefits by multiplying the 25% of past due benefits amount by four ($18,512.00 28 x 4). (See Doc. No. 29-2 at 1). 1 payable from past-due benefits awarded to the claimant.” Biggerstaff v. Saul, 840 F. App'x 69, 70 2 (9th Cir. 2020). The fee is not borne by the Commissioner. Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 3 1147 (9th Cir. 2009). This provision’s purpose is in part to “ensure that attorneys representing 4 successful claimants would not risk nonpayment of [appropriate] fees.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 5 805 (internal quotations omitted). When weighing the adequacy of requested attorney’s fees, 6 Courts should respect “the primacy of lawful attorney-client fee agreements.” Id. at 793. 7 Counsel still bears the burden, however, of showing the requested fees are reasonable. Id. at 807. 8 In determining reasonableness, the court may consider the experience of the attorney, the results 9 they achieved, and whether there is evidence the attorney artificially increased the hours worked 10 or the hourly rate charged. Id. at 807-808; Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151. Any 406(b) award is 11 offset by attorney fees granted under the EAJA. Parrish v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 698 F.3d 12 1215, 1219 (9th Cir. 2012) 13 III. ANALYSIS 14 Here, Plaintiff signed a fee agreement providing, “Client shall pay Jared T. Walker 15 Twenty-five percent (25%) of any and all retroactive benefits the Social Security Administration 16 awards to Client . . . in connection with Client’s claim.” (Doc. No. 29-1). Counsel was 17 ultimately successful in securing $74,048.00 in retroactive benefits for Plaintiff. (See Doc. No. 18 29-2). In support of this motion, Counsel submitted a time sheet indicating the firm expended 19 40.58 hours in attorney time on this matter. (Doc. No. 29-3). The time Counsel spent in 20 successfully attaining Plaintiff’s benefits does not appear inflated. 21 Counsel’s request for $18,512.00 in fees for 40.58 hours of work results in an hourly rate 22 of $456.18 for the attorney work. (Doc. No. 29 at 4). In 2008, the Ninth Circuit found higher 23 hourly rates reasonable in social security contingency fee arrangements. Crawford, 586 F.3d at 24 1153 (explaining that the majority opinion found reasonable effective hourly rates equaling 25 $519.00, $875.00, and $902.00) (J. Clifton, concurring in part and dissenting in part). More 26 recently, this Court approved an hourly rate of $1,025.22 for paralegal and attorney time. 27 Mayfield v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:16-cv-01084-SAB, ECF No. 24, at 5 (E.D. Cal. March 19, 28 2020). Based on the foregoing, the Court finds the requested fees of $18,512.00 are reasonable. 1 | Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807-08. 2 An award of attorney’s fees pursuant to § 406(b) in the amount of $18,512.00 is, 3 | therefore, appropriate. An award of § 406(b) fees, however, must be offset by any prior award of 4 | attorneys’ fees granted under the EAJA. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d); Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. 796. As 5 | Plaintiff was previously awarded $8,600.00 in fees pursuant to the EAJA, Counsel shall refund 6 | this amount to Plaintiff. 7 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 8 1. Plaintiff's Counsel’s motion for an award of attorney’s fees under § 406(b) (Doc. No. 9 29) is GRANTED. 10 2. Plaintiff’s Counsel is awarded $18,512.00 in attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 11 406(b). 12 3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALISON M. HALL, Case No. 1:20-cv-01635-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES PURSUANT TO 42 13 v. U.S.C. § 406(b)2

14 MARTIN O’MALLEY, (Doc. No. 29) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 15 SECURITY,1 ORDER FOR CLERK TO MAIL A COPY OF ORDER TO PLAINTIFF 16 Defendant.

17 18 Jared T. Walker (“Counsel”) of the Law Office of Jared T. Walker, PC, attorney for 19 Alison M. Hall (“Plaintiff”), filed a motion seeking attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) 20 on April 4, 2024. (Doc. No. 29). Plaintiff was served with the motion and advised she had 14 21 days to object. (Id. at 2). No opposition has been filed as of the date of this Order. (See docket). 22 For the reasons set forth below, the motion for attorney’s fees is granted in the amount of 23 $18,512.00 subject to an offset of $8,600.00 in fees previously awarded on December 7, 2022, 24 under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). (Doc. No. 29). 25 1 The Court has substituted Martin O’Malley, who has been appointed the Acting Commissioner of Social 26 Security, as the defendant in this suit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 2 Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 27 §636(c)(1). (Doc. No. 10).

28 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 On November 17, 2020, Plaintiff brought the underlying action seeking judicial review of 3 a final administrative decision denying Plaintiff’s claim for disability insurance benefits under the 4 Social Security Act. (Doc. No. 1). On September 6, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion 5 for summary judgment and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 6 Nos. 19, 23). The Court entered an award of $8,600.00 for attorney fees under the Equal Access 7 to Justice Act (“EAJA”) on December 7, 2022. (Doc. Nos. 27, 28). 8 Upon remand, the Commissioner awarded $74,048.00 in retroactive benefits to Plaintiff.3 9 (Doc. No. 29-2 at 1). On April 4, 2024, Counsel filed this motion for attorney’s fees in the 10 amount of $18,512.00, with an offset of $8,600.00 for EAJA fees already awarded. (Doc. No. 11 29). Counsel argues these fees are reasonable because the contingency fee agreement, which 12 Plaintiff signed, permits Counsel to retain 25% of the past-due benefits, and the requested amount 13 is reasonable. (Doc. No. 29; Doc. No. 29-1). Defendant filed no opposition to the request, and 14 the deadline for doing so has passed. See Local Rule 230. 15 II. APPLICABLE LAW 16 Attorneys may seek a reasonable fee under the Social Security Act for cases in which they 17 have successfully represented social security claimants. Section 406(b) allows:

18 Whenever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant under this subchapter who was represented before the court by an attorney, 19 the court may determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such representation, not in excess of 25 percent of 20 the total of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled . . .. 21 22 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). Counsel for a plaintiff may recover attorneys’ fees under both 42 23 U.S.C. § 406(b) and EAJA. Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002). Counsel, however, 24 must refund to the plaintiff the amount of the smaller fee. Id. 25 Fees in social security cases “are usually set in contingency-fee agreements and are 26

27 3 Plaintiff did not provide a citation to this amount in the notice of award; rather, Plaintiff calculates the total amount of past-due benefits by multiplying the 25% of past due benefits amount by four ($18,512.00 28 x 4). (See Doc. No. 29-2 at 1). 1 payable from past-due benefits awarded to the claimant.” Biggerstaff v. Saul, 840 F. App'x 69, 70 2 (9th Cir. 2020). The fee is not borne by the Commissioner. Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 3 1147 (9th Cir. 2009). This provision’s purpose is in part to “ensure that attorneys representing 4 successful claimants would not risk nonpayment of [appropriate] fees.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 5 805 (internal quotations omitted). When weighing the adequacy of requested attorney’s fees, 6 Courts should respect “the primacy of lawful attorney-client fee agreements.” Id. at 793. 7 Counsel still bears the burden, however, of showing the requested fees are reasonable. Id. at 807. 8 In determining reasonableness, the court may consider the experience of the attorney, the results 9 they achieved, and whether there is evidence the attorney artificially increased the hours worked 10 or the hourly rate charged. Id. at 807-808; Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151. Any 406(b) award is 11 offset by attorney fees granted under the EAJA. Parrish v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 698 F.3d 12 1215, 1219 (9th Cir. 2012) 13 III. ANALYSIS 14 Here, Plaintiff signed a fee agreement providing, “Client shall pay Jared T. Walker 15 Twenty-five percent (25%) of any and all retroactive benefits the Social Security Administration 16 awards to Client . . . in connection with Client’s claim.” (Doc. No. 29-1). Counsel was 17 ultimately successful in securing $74,048.00 in retroactive benefits for Plaintiff. (See Doc. No. 18 29-2). In support of this motion, Counsel submitted a time sheet indicating the firm expended 19 40.58 hours in attorney time on this matter. (Doc. No. 29-3). The time Counsel spent in 20 successfully attaining Plaintiff’s benefits does not appear inflated. 21 Counsel’s request for $18,512.00 in fees for 40.58 hours of work results in an hourly rate 22 of $456.18 for the attorney work. (Doc. No. 29 at 4). In 2008, the Ninth Circuit found higher 23 hourly rates reasonable in social security contingency fee arrangements. Crawford, 586 F.3d at 24 1153 (explaining that the majority opinion found reasonable effective hourly rates equaling 25 $519.00, $875.00, and $902.00) (J. Clifton, concurring in part and dissenting in part). More 26 recently, this Court approved an hourly rate of $1,025.22 for paralegal and attorney time. 27 Mayfield v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:16-cv-01084-SAB, ECF No. 24, at 5 (E.D. Cal. March 19, 28 2020). Based on the foregoing, the Court finds the requested fees of $18,512.00 are reasonable. 1 | Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807-08. 2 An award of attorney’s fees pursuant to § 406(b) in the amount of $18,512.00 is, 3 | therefore, appropriate. An award of § 406(b) fees, however, must be offset by any prior award of 4 | attorneys’ fees granted under the EAJA. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d); Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. 796. As 5 | Plaintiff was previously awarded $8,600.00 in fees pursuant to the EAJA, Counsel shall refund 6 | this amount to Plaintiff. 7 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 8 1. Plaintiff's Counsel’s motion for an award of attorney’s fees under § 406(b) (Doc. No. 9 29) is GRANTED. 10 2. Plaintiff’s Counsel is awarded $18,512.00 in attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 11 406(b). 12 3. Counsel shall refund to Plaintiff $8,600.00 of the § 406(b) fees awarded as an offset 13 for the EAJA fees previously awarded pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (See Doc. No. 14 28). 15 4. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to serve a copy of this Order on 16 Plaintiff Alison M. Hall, 5901 Newbrook Circle, Space 114, Riverbank, CA 95367. 17 | Dated: __April 29, 2024 Wh fareh Zaskth 19 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(SS) Hall v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ss-hall-v-commissioner-of-social-security-caed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack