Case 2:20-cv-06532-GJS Document 28 Filed 01/25/23 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:811

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 JAVIER R.,1 12 Case No. 2:20-06532-GJS Plaintiff 13 v. ORDER AWARDING 14 ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT KILOLO KIJAKAJI, Acting TO

(b) 15 Commissioner of Social Security, 16 Defendant.

17

18 On July 11, 2022, counsel for Plaintiff filed a Motion for Attorney’s Fees 19 Pursuant to

(b). [Dkt. 24.] Plaintiff’s counsel seeks an order for 20 payment of fees in the amount of $20,290.75, with a credit to Plaintiff in the amount 21 of $6,100 for fees that were previously awarded pursuant to

(d), 22 the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). The Commissioner does not oppose the 23 motion. [Dkt. 29.] For the reasons stated below, the Court grants counsel’s Motion. 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 27 1 In the interest of protecting Plaintiff’s privacy, this Order uses Plaintiff’s first 28 name and last initial. Case 2:20-cv-06532-GJS Document 28 Filed 01/25/23 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:812

1 BACKGROUND 2 This case was previously remanded to the Commissioner for further 3 administrative proceedings. [Dkt 18.] The Commissioner subsequently granted 4 Plaintiff’s application for disability insurance benefits, entitling Plaintiff to receive 5 approximately $81,163 in retroactive benefits. [Dkt 24 at 6, ¶ 4, 24-1 at 2.] 6 DISCUSSION 7 Under Section 406(b)(1) of Title 42, the Court may award to counsel a 8 portion of a judgment favorable to claimant for benefits as a reasonable fee for 9 representing the claimant, provided it does not exceed 25 percent of the claimant’s 10 past due benefits. See

(b)(1)(A). Contingent fee arrangements are 11 the primary avenue by which Social Security plaintiffs’ counsel are compensated, 12 subject to the 25 percent cap, although counsel must show that the fee sought is 13 reasonable for the services rendered. See Gisbrecht v. Barnhart,

, 807 14 (2002). Counsel’s “normal hourly billing charge for non-contingent-fee cases” and 15 the number of hours spent on the representation may aid “the court’s assessment of 16 the reasonableness of the fee yielded by the fee agreements.”

. 17 Here, counsel’s fee request is reasonable. Plaintiff agreed to pay counsel a 18 contingent fee of 25 percent of past due benefits. [Dkt 24 at 6, ¶ 5, 24-2.] The fee 19 requested, $20,290.75, amounts to 25% of the past due benefits. [Dkt 24-1 at 2.] 20 The amount sought translates into an hourly rate of $624.33 per hour for legal 21 services provided in litigating the case in this Court (32.5 hours of attorney time 22 [Dkt 47 at 4, 7-8]), which is within the bounds of reasonable hourly rates for legal 23 work of this kind. The record discloses no issue regarding the quality or efficiency 24 of counsel’s representation before this Court, and counsel obtained a favorable result 25 for Plaintiff in the form of a stipulated remand for further administrative 26 proceedings. See Crawford v. Astrue,

(9th Cir. 2009). 27 28 2 Case 2:20-cv-06532-GJS Document 28 Filed 01/25/23 Page 3of3 Page ID #:813 ORDER ° IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's counsel’s Motion for Attorney’s fees Pursuant to

(b) is GRANTED. Section 406(b) fees

5 are allowed in the gross amount of $20,290.75, to be paid out of the sums withheld

‘ by the Commissioner from Plaintiff's past due benefits. Plaintiff's counsel is ordered to reimburse Plaintiff in the amount of $6.100 for EAJA fees previously awarded. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 1D DATED: January 25, 2023 Ups 13 HON. GAILJ. STANDISH 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28