1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOHN F GIBBS, Case No. 19-cv-06199-SK

8 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO 9 v. ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT ON ATTORNEYS' FEES 10 ANDREW SAUL, 11 Defendant. Regarding Docket No. 26

12 Now before the Court is Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s motion to alter or 13 amend judgment on the Court’s award of attorney fees. A motion to alter or amend judgment 14 pursuant to Rule 59(e) may be made upon the following grounds: (1) the motion is “necessary to 15 correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based;” (2) the moving party 16 presents “newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence;” (3) the motion is necessary to 17 “prevent manifest injustice;” or (4) there is an “intervening change in controlling law.” Turner v. 18 Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad,

(9th Cir. 2003). 19 Defendant argues that the Court erred in considering Plaintiff’s counsel’s hours expended 20 at the administrative level in determining whether her requested fees under

(b) 21 were reasonable. If the Court considered only counsel’s hours expended in federal court, her 22 effective hourly rate would be the equivalent of $1,014.11 per hour. Although this rate is high, the 23 Court notes that other courts in California, including in the Northern District, have approved 24 similar rates. See Ainsworth v. Berryhill,

, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2020) (finding hourly rate of $1,325.34 reasonable); Gaona v. Berryhill,

, at *2 (N.D. 25 Cal. May 19, 2020) (while noting rate was “very high,” approving effective hourly rate of 26 $1,168.50); Reddick v. Berryhill,

, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2019) (approving 27 1 2018) (finding de facto hourly rate of $1,213.83 reasonable); Williams v. Berryhill,

6333695, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2018) (awarding fees exceeding $1,500 per hour); Coles v. 3 Berryhill,

, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 21, 2018) (finding effective hourly rate of 4 $1,431.94 reasonable); Villa v. Astrue,

, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2010) 5 (approving § 406(b) fee request exceeding $1000 an hour). 6 Considering counsel’s quality of work, the result counsel achieved for Plaintiff, and the 7 risks counsel incurred, the Court finds that counsel’s requested fees are reasonable, even at the 8 effective hourly rate of $1,014.11. Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to alter or 9 amend judgment. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 23, 2021 2 12 Athan [ww ALLIE KIM 13 United States Magistrate Judge

15 16 & = 17

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