Gibbs v. Saul

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN F GIBBS, Case No. 19-cv-06199-SK

Plaintiff,

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO v. ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT ON

ATTORNEYS' FEES

ANDREW SAUL,

Defendant. Regarding Docket No. 26

Now before the Court is Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s motion to alter or amend judgment on the Court’s award of attorney fees. A motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) may be made upon the following grounds: (1) the motion is “necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based;” (2) the moving party presents “newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence;” (3) the motion is necessary to “prevent manifest injustice;” or (4) there is an “intervening change in controlling law.” Turner v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003).

Defendant argues that the Court erred in considering Plaintiff’s counsel’s hours expended at the administrative level in determining whether her requested fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) were reasonable. If the Court considered only counsel’s hours expended in federal court, her effective hourly rate would be the equivalent of $1,014.11 per hour. Although this rate is high, the Court notes that other courts in California, including in the Northern District, have approved similar rates. See Ainsworth v. Berryhill, 2020 WL 6149710, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2020) (finding hourly rate of $1,325.34 reasonable); Gaona v. Berryhill, 2020 WL 2542018, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 19, 2020) (while noting rate was “very high,” approving effective hourly rate of $1,168.50); Reddick v. Berryhill, 2019 WL 1112080, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2019) (approving 2018) (finding de facto hourly rate of $1,213.83 reasonable); Williams v. Berryhill, 2018 WL 2 6333695, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2018) (awarding fees exceeding $1,500 per hour); Coles v. Berryhill, 2018 WL 3104502, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 21, 2018) (finding effective hourly rate of $1,431.94 reasonable); Villa v. Astrue, 2010 WL 118454, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2010) (approving § 406(b) fee request exceeding $1000 an hour).

6 Considering counsel’s quality of work, the result counsel achieved for Plaintiff, and the risks counsel incurred, the Court finds that counsel’s requested fees are reasonable, even at the effective hourly rate of $1,014.11. Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to alter or amend judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2021

12 Athan [ww

ALLIE KIM

United States Magistrate Judge

& = 17

Z 18