Yolanda V. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

S.D. California

Yolanda V. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedJanuary 5, 2026

Docket3:19-cv-01856

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Yolanda V. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, (S.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 YOLANDA V. Case No.: 19-cv-1856-DEB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO 14 FRANK BISIGNANO, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) Commissioner of Social Security, 15

16 Defendant. [DKT. NO. 26] 17 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 406(b). Dkt. No. 26 (“Motion”). Neither Plaintiff nor the Commissioner oppose 20 the Motion. 21 For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 Plaintiff Yolanda V. filed this action seeking review of the Commissioner of Social 24 Security’s (“Commissioner”) denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits. 25 Dkt. No. 1 (Compl.). The Court reversed the denial of benefits and remanded the case for 26 further proceedings. Dkt. No. 23. Pursuant to the parties’ joint motion (Dkt. No. 24), the 27 Court awarded Plaintiff $4,400 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access for Justice Act 28 (“EAJA”). Dkt. No. 25. 1 On remand, the Commissioner issued a decision favorable to Plaintiff and awarded 2 $247,681.00 in past-due disability insurance benefits. Dkt. No. 26-4 at 2, 4. The 3 Commissioner withheld $61,920.25 from the award in case Plaintiff’s counsel requested 4 payment of fees. Id. at 4. 5 II. LEGAL STANDARD 6 Attorneys may seek “a reasonable fee” for successfully representing Social Security 7 claimants. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). The fee cannot exceed “25 percent of the total of the 8 past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled . . . .” Id.; see also Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 9 535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002) (“Within the 25 percent [statutory] boundary . . ., the attorney 10 for the successful claimant must show that the fee sought is reasonable for the services 11 rendered.”). 12 The Court “must ‘approach [§ 406(b)] fee determinations by looking first to the 13 contingent-fee agreement, then testing it for reasonableness.’” Crawford v. Astrue, 586 14 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (quoting Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808). In 15 evaluating the reasonableness of the fee award, the Court must consider “the character of 16 the representation and the results the representative achieved.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808 17 (citations omitted). The Court also “may properly reduce the fee for substandard 18 performance, delay, or benefits that are not in proportion to the time spent on the case.” 19 Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151 (citation omitted). 20 Finally, the Court must offset the § 406(b) fee award by any fees granted under the 21 EAJA. See Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 796 (“Fee awards may be made under both prescriptions 22 [i.e., the EAJA and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)], but the claimant’s attorney must ‘refun[d] to the 23 claimant the amount of the smaller fee.’” (citation omitted)). 24 III. DISCUSSION 25 Plaintiff’s counsel seeks $37,920.25 in attorney’s fees, offset by the previous $4,400 26 EAJA fee award, for a net award of $33,520.25. Dkt. No. 26-1 at 4, 10. The Court has 27 conducted an independent inquiry and finds the requested fee is reasonable and not a 28 windfall. 1 Plaintiff and counsel entered into a contingency fee agreement for counsel to receive 2 25% of past-due benefits.1 Dkt. No. 26-2. Counsel now requests attorney’s fees totaling 3 15.3% of the past due award. Dkt. No. 26-1 at 4, 10. Neither the Commissioner nor Plaintiff 4 oppose counsel’s request. 5 The Court does not find any reduction is warranted. See Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151 6 (“The court may properly reduce the fee for substandard performance, delay, or benefits 7 that are not in proportion to the time spent on the case.” (citation omitted)). Counsel 8 “assumed significant risk” in accepting this case, “including the risk that no benefits would 9 be awarded or that there would be a long court or administrative delay in resolving” this 10 case. Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1152; see also Moreno v. Berryhill, No. 13-cv-8492-PLA, 11 2018 WL 3490777, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 19, 2018) (explaining the “risk of nonpayment 12 inherent in a contingency agreement”). 13 There is no evidence of substandard performance or delay,2 and the requested fees 14 are “not excessively large in relation to the benefits achieved” or the “time spent on the 15 case.” Id. Counsel and a paralegal expended 22.3 hours on this case,3 for an effective hourly 16 rate of $1,700.46. Dkt. No. 26-5. Counsel has practiced social security law for over 25 17 years (Dkt. No. 26-1 ¶ 9), and his representation resulted in Plaintiff receiving a favorable 18 decision and an award of eight years’ of past-due benefits. The Court finds this fee award 19 sought is reasonable considering the experience of counsel, the risk assumed, and the result 20 obtained. See Palos v. Colvin, No. 15-cv-4261-DTB, 2016 WL 5110243, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 21 Sep. 20, 2016) (approving an hourly rate of $1,546.39 for 9.7 hours worked, in part because 22 “[c]ounsel’s efforts ultimately proved quite successful for plaintiff.”); Dkt. No. 26-4 at 1. 23

24 1 A strict 25% is $61,920.25. 25 2 The parties requested (and received) a 45-day extension of the dispositive motion filing 26 deadline based on staffing changes and reassignment to new counsel. Dkt. No. 17 at 1–2; 27 Dkt. No. 18 at 2.

28 1 Counsel’s requested fee is not so inordinately large relative to the number of hours spent 2 || that it represents a windfall. White v. Berryhill, No. 04-cv-0331-AS, 2017 WL 11634804, 3 *3 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2017) (approving a $1,612 effective hourly rate for 24.95 hours 4 billed by counsel and paralegal); Reddick v. Berryhill, No. 16-cv-0029-BTM-BLM, 2019 5 || WL 2330895, at *1—2 (S.D. Cal. May 30, 2019) (approving an effective hourly rate of 6 $1,990.74 for 21.6 hours of work, on reconsideration). 7 IV. CONCLUSION 8 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's counsel’s Motion for 9 || Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to § 406(b) in the amount of $37,920.25. Dkt. No. 26. 10 The Commissioner is DIRECTED to certify payment of a $37,920.25 fee award, 11 ||made payable to the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, Inc., CPC and delivered to 12 || Brian C. Shapiro, out of Plaintiff's past-due benefits in accordance with agency policy. 13 The Court further ORDERS Plaintiff's counsel to refund Plaintiff $4,400 to offset 14 || the EAJA fees previously awarded. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: January 5, 2026 Dok PT 18 Honorable Daniel E. Butcher United States Magistrate Judge 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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 YOLANDA V. Case No.: 19-cv-1856-DEB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO 14 FRANK BISIGNANO, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) Commissioner of Social Security, 15

16 Defendant. [DKT. NO. 26] 17 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 406(b). Dkt. No. 26 (“Motion”). Neither Plaintiff nor the Commissioner oppose 20 the Motion. 21 For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 Plaintiff Yolanda V. filed this action seeking review of the Commissioner of Social 24 Security’s (“Commissioner”) denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits. 25 Dkt. No. 1 (Compl.). The Court reversed the denial of benefits and remanded the case for 26 further proceedings. Dkt. No. 23. Pursuant to the parties’ joint motion (Dkt. No. 24), the 27 Court awarded Plaintiff $4,400 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access for Justice Act 28 (“EAJA”). Dkt. No. 25. 1 On remand, the Commissioner issued a decision favorable to Plaintiff and awarded 2 $247,681.00 in past-due disability insurance benefits. Dkt. No. 26-4 at 2, 4. The 3 Commissioner withheld $61,920.25 from the award in case Plaintiff’s counsel requested 4 payment of fees. Id. at 4. 5 II. LEGAL STANDARD 6 Attorneys may seek “a reasonable fee” for successfully representing Social Security 7 claimants. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). The fee cannot exceed “25 percent of the total of the 8 past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled . . . .” Id.; see also Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 9 535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002) (“Within the 25 percent [statutory] boundary . . ., the attorney 10 for the successful claimant must show that the fee sought is reasonable for the services 11 rendered.”). 12 The Court “must ‘approach [§ 406(b)] fee determinations by looking first to the 13 contingent-fee agreement, then testing it for reasonableness.’” Crawford v. Astrue, 586 14 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (quoting Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808). In 15 evaluating the reasonableness of the fee award, the Court must consider “the character of 16 the representation and the results the representative achieved.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808 17 (citations omitted). The Court also “may properly reduce the fee for substandard 18 performance, delay, or benefits that are not in proportion to the time spent on the case.” 19 Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151 (citation omitted). 20 Finally, the Court must offset the § 406(b) fee award by any fees granted under the 21 EAJA. See Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 796 (“Fee awards may be made under both prescriptions 22 [i.e., the EAJA and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)], but the claimant’s attorney must ‘refun[d] to the 23 claimant the amount of the smaller fee.’” (citation omitted)). 24 III. DISCUSSION 25 Plaintiff’s counsel seeks $37,920.25 in attorney’s fees, offset by the previous $4,400 26 EAJA fee award, for a net award of $33,520.25. Dkt. No. 26-1 at 4, 10. The Court has 27 conducted an independent inquiry and finds the requested fee is reasonable and not a 28 windfall. 1 Plaintiff and counsel entered into a contingency fee agreement for counsel to receive 2 25% of past-due benefits.1 Dkt. No. 26-2. Counsel now requests attorney’s fees totaling 3 15.3% of the past due award. Dkt. No. 26-1 at 4, 10. Neither the Commissioner nor Plaintiff 4 oppose counsel’s request. 5 The Court does not find any reduction is warranted. See Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151 6 (“The court may properly reduce the fee for substandard performance, delay, or benefits 7 that are not in proportion to the time spent on the case.” (citation omitted)). Counsel 8 “assumed significant risk” in accepting this case, “including the risk that no benefits would 9 be awarded or that there would be a long court or administrative delay in resolving” this 10 case. Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1152; see also Moreno v. Berryhill, No. 13-cv-8492-PLA, 11 2018 WL 3490777, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 19, 2018) (explaining the “risk of nonpayment 12 inherent in a contingency agreement”). 13 There is no evidence of substandard performance or delay,2 and the requested fees 14 are “not excessively large in relation to the benefits achieved” or the “time spent on the 15 case.” Id. Counsel and a paralegal expended 22.3 hours on this case,3 for an effective hourly 16 rate of $1,700.46. Dkt. No. 26-5. Counsel has practiced social security law for over 25 17 years (Dkt. No. 26-1 ¶ 9), and his representation resulted in Plaintiff receiving a favorable 18 decision and an award of eight years’ of past-due benefits. The Court finds this fee award 19 sought is reasonable considering the experience of counsel, the risk assumed, and the result 20 obtained. See Palos v. Colvin, No. 15-cv-4261-DTB, 2016 WL 5110243, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 21 Sep. 20, 2016) (approving an hourly rate of $1,546.39 for 9.7 hours worked, in part because 22 “[c]ounsel’s efforts ultimately proved quite successful for plaintiff.”); Dkt. No. 26-4 at 1. 23

24 1 A strict 25% is $61,920.25. 25 2 The parties requested (and received) a 45-day extension of the dispositive motion filing 26 deadline based on staffing changes and reassignment to new counsel. Dkt. No. 17 at 1–2; 27 Dkt. No. 18 at 2.

28 1 Counsel’s requested fee is not so inordinately large relative to the number of hours spent 2 || that it represents a windfall. White v. Berryhill, No. 04-cv-0331-AS, 2017 WL 11634804, 3 *3 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2017) (approving a $1,612 effective hourly rate for 24.95 hours 4 billed by counsel and paralegal); Reddick v. Berryhill, No. 16-cv-0029-BTM-BLM, 2019 5 || WL 2330895, at *1—2 (S.D. Cal. May 30, 2019) (approving an effective hourly rate of 6 $1,990.74 for 21.6 hours of work, on reconsideration). 7 IV. CONCLUSION 8 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's counsel’s Motion for 9 || Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to § 406(b) in the amount of $37,920.25. Dkt. No. 26. 10 The Commissioner is DIRECTED to certify payment of a $37,920.25 fee award, 11 ||made payable to the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, Inc., CPC and delivered to 12 || Brian C. Shapiro, out of Plaintiff's past-due benefits in accordance with agency policy. 13 The Court further ORDERS Plaintiff's counsel to refund Plaintiff $4,400 to offset 14 || the EAJA fees previously awarded. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: January 5, 2026 Dok PT 18 Honorable Daniel E. Butcher United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Yolanda V. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yolanda-v-v-frank-bisignano-commissioner-of-social-security-casd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack