1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANTHONY DAWAYNE HINES, Case No. 16-cv-03078-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 9 v. FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

10 NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Re: Dkt. No. 24 Defendant. 11

12 13 Plaintiff’s counsel, Katherine Siegfried, moves for attorney’s fees pursuant to

406(b) for representing Plaintiff in his successful appeal of the Commissioner of the Social 15 Security Administration’s (“Commissioner’s”) denial of social security disability benefits. (Dkt. 16 No. 24.) The Commissioner’s response does not oppose Plaintiff’s request for fees. After careful 17 consideration of Plaintiff’s motion and the relevant legal authority, the Court GRANTS the motion 18 for attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 406(b). 19 BACKGROUND 20 This case stems from Plaintiff’s appeal of the SSA’s denial of social security benefits for a 21 combination of mental and physical impairments, including: severe hip pain and depression. On 22 July 31, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, denied Defendant’s 23 cross-motion for summary judgment, and remanded for further proceedings. (Dkt. No. 20.) On 24 September 27, 2017, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court awarded $3,500 in fees to 25 Plaintiff’s counsel under to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”),

(d). (Dkt. 26 No. 23.) 27 Following remand, Plaintiff appeared for a further hearing before an Administrative Law 1 2020, Plaintiff was notified that he had been awarded disability benefits from 2011-2015 and that 2 he was owed $118,425 in past due benefits. (Dkt. No. 24-4.) Social Security has withheld 3 $29,606.25 from Plaintiff’s past due award for attorney’s fees from which Social Security has 4 already paid Plaintiff’s counsel $6,000 for work performed before the Agency under

406(a). (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff’s counsel thereafter filed the now pending motion for attorney’s fees 6 for work performed in this Court under Section 406(b). (Dkt. No. 24.) Pursuant to Plaintiff and 7 his counsel’s contingency fee agreement for this case, counsel may seek fees up to 25 percent of 8 any past-due benefits awarded to Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 24-3.) Counsel accordingly requests fees in 9 the amount of $23,606.25 which represents approximately 25% of Plaintiff’s past-due benefits 10 (including the $6,000 already paid under Section 406(a)). Plaintiff’s counsel served Plaintiff with 11 a copy of the motion and he filed a declaration in support of the fee motion agreeing that counsel 12 is entitled to the $23,606.25 sought. (Dkt. No. 24-2 at ¶ 8.) The Commissioner filed a response 13 taking no position on the reasonableness of the fees sought. (Dkt. No. 26.) 14 LEGAL STANDARD 15 Section 406(b) provides that “[w]henever a court renders a judgment favorable to a [social 16 security] claimant under this subchapter who was represented before the court by an attorney, the 17 court may determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee” to claimant’s attorney; 18 such a fee can be no more than 25 percent of the total of past-due benefits awarded to the claimant. 19

(b)(1)(A). A court may award such a fee even if the court’s judgment did not 20 immediately result in an award of past-due benefits; where the court has rendered a judgment 21 favorable to a claimant by reversing an earlier determination by an ALJ and remanding for further 22 consideration, the court may calculate the 25 percent fee based upon any past-due benefits 23 awarded on remand. See, e.g., Crawford v. Astrue,

(9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). 24 Under Section 406(b), a court must serve “as an independent check” of contingency fee 25 agreements “to assure that they yield reasonable results.” Gisbrecht v. Barnhart,

, 26 807 (2002). Section 406(b) “does not displace contingent-fee agreements within the statutory 27 ceiling; instead, [Section] 406(b) instructs courts to review for reasonableness fees yielded by 1 of the representation and the results achieved, see Gisbrecht,

, and can include 2 analyzing: whether counsel provided substandard representation; any dilatory conduct by counsel 3 to accumulate additional fees; whether the requested fees are excessively large in relation to the 4 benefits achieved; and the risk counsel assumed by accepting the case. See Crawford,

1151-52. 6 A court must offset an award of Section 406(b) attorneys’ fees by any award of fees 7 granted under the EAJA. Gisbrecht,

; Parrish v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 698

(9th Cir. 2012). 9 ANALYSIS 10 Plaintiff’s counsel has demonstrated that the amount of fees requested is reasonable for the 11 services rendered. See Gisbrecht,

. First, while not dispositive, Plaintiff and 12 counsel’s contingency fee agreement is within the 25 percent threshold permitted under Section 13 406(b) as the agreement provides that counsel will not ask for a fee of more than 25 percent of 14 total past-due benefits awarded. (Dkt. No. 24-3.) Second, there is no indication that a reduction of 15 fees is warranted due to any substandard performance by counsel or that counsel delayed these 16 proceedings in an effort to increase the amount of fees awarded. To the contrary, counsel 17 provided substantial work and achieved favorable results for Plaintiff as she succeeded in having 18 the Court remand this matter for further proceedings. Nor is the amount of fees, $23,606.25, 19 excessive in relation to the past-due benefits award of $118,425. See, e.g., Eckert v. Berryhill, No. 20 15-CV-04461-JCS,

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2017) (awarding $16,566.25 in 21 fees following an award of $66,265 in retroactive benefits); Devigili v. Berryhill, No. 15-CV- 22 02237-SI,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2017) (awarding $15,278.00 in fees 23 following an award of $76,391.00 in retroactive benefits); Conner v. Colvin, No. 13-CV-03324- 24 KAW,

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2016) (awarding $17,746.00 in fees following 25 an award of $94,987.60 in retroactive benefits). Lastly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s counsel 26 assumed a substantial risk of not recovering fees when she accepted this case. Plaintiff and counsel 27 entered into the contingency fee agreement prior to the filing of this action. (Dkt. No. 24-3.) At 1 not know that the Court would remand to the Commissioner. 2 Accordingly, the Court finds that the amount of requested fees is reasonable. 3 CONCLUSION 4 For the reasons described above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for fees. 5 The Commissioner is directed to certify fees under

(b) in the amount of 6 || $23,606.25, payable to the Law Offices of Katherine Siegfried. Plaintiffs counsel is ordered to 7 refund the previously awarded EAJA fees, in the amount of $3,500.00, to Plaintiff. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: June 4, 2020 11

JAQQUELINE SCOTT CORL 13 United States Magistrate Judge

(«4

15

16

17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28