1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ROBERT ERIC PICKETT, Case No. 20-cv-01772-AGT

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO 10 KILOLO KAJAKAZI,

(b) 11 Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 32

12 13 Plaintiff brought this action for judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s 14 decision denying his claim for disability benefits. After plaintiff filed a motion for summary 15 judgment, the parties stipulated to voluntarily remand the case for further proceedings. Dkts. 22, 16 27. The Court granted the stipulation and entered judgment based on that stipulation and order. 17 Dkts. 28, 29. Following entry of judgment, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation awarding 18 plaintiff $6,000.00 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act,

(d) 19 (“EAJA”). Dkt. 31. On remand, plaintiff was awarded past-due benefits in the amount of 20 $133,408.12. See Dkt. 32-2 (Harding Decl.) ¶¶ 9–11; Dkt. 32-6 (ALJ decision on remand); Dkt. 21 32-7 (notice of award). 22 Currently before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for an award of attorney’s fees in the 23 amount of $27,352.03, which is 20.5% of the past-due benefits awarded. Dkt. 32. The motion is 24 made pursuant to

(b) and plaintiff’s contingent fee agreement with his counsel, 25 Jerron Harding. See Dkt. 32-4 (fee agreement). The motion includes a declaration from Harding 26 supporting the request for attorney’s fees, see Dkt. 32-2, along with detailed time records 27 reflecting 33.2 hours of Harding’s time for work performed in connection with the district court ] Having reviewed the motion and supporting materials, the applicable case law, and the 2 || record in this case, the Court is satisfied that the fees sought pursuant to § 406(b) are reasonable. 3 First, the contingent fee agreement between Harding and plaintiff provides for payment of fees not 4 to exceed 25% of past-due benefits recovered, see Dkt. 32-4 at 2, which 1s consistent with the 25% 5 statutory cap set forth in § 406(b). The requested fees likewise comply, as they total only 20.5% 6 || of the total award. Second, nothing in the record indicates that Harding’s performance was 7 || substandard or that he delayed proceedings in an effort to increase the amount of fees awarded. 8 || Indeed, Harding obtained an excellent result for plaintiff, consisting of a substantial award of past- 9 || due benefits, after he obtained the Commissioner’s stipulation to voluntarily remand the case. 10 || Third, the requested fee award of $27,352.03 for 33.2 hours of work translates to an hourly rate of 11 approximately $823.85. Courts in this circuit have awarded fees under § 406(b) with effective 12 hourly rates ranging between $1,000.00 and $1,500.00. See McCullough v. Berryhill, No. 16-cv- E 13 00625-BLF,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2018) (citing cases). In this context, 14 || the fees sought by Harding are reasonable. 3 15 Accordingly, the Court finds that Harding’s request for $27,352.03 under § 406(b) is 16 || reasonable under the facts of this case. Harding will be required to reimburse plaintiff for all fees i 17 || previously awarded in this case under EAJA. 18 ok 19 For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows: 20 (1) plaintiff's unopposed motion for attorney’s fees under

(b) is 21 granted in the amount of $27,352.03; and 22 (2) Harding must refund plaintiff the $6,000.00 previously awarded as EAJA fees. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: February 23, 2023 25 26 AL . TSE 27 United States Magistrate Judge 28