1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SUZANNE D. Case No. 21-cv-01459-SI

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 9 v. MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES UNDER SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 42 10 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, U.S.C. § 406(b) 11 Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 30

12 13 Now before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to

(b). 14 Dkt. No. 30. Plaintiff’s counsel served a copy of this motion on plaintiff.

. The government 15 filed a response taking no position on the reasonableness of the fee request but confirming that the 16 dollar figures in the motion appear to be correct. Dkt. No. 31. 17 18 BACKGROUND 19 Attorney Ashish Agrawal represented plaintiff before this Court on appeal of her application 20 for Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Plaintiff filed a motion 21 for summary judgment and the government then agreed to voluntarily remand the case for further 22 administrative proceedings under sentence four of

(g). Dkt. Nos. 22, 24. Pursuant 23 to the parties’ stipulation, the Court remanded the case to the Social Security Administration and 24 entered judgment in plaintiff’s favor. Dkt. Nos. 25, 27.1 On December 1, 2021, pursuant to 25 stipulation, this Court approved an award of $7,500.00 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to 26 1 Plaintiff’s motion asserts: “Though outstanding quality appellate advocacy, [plaintiff’s] 27 counsel convinced this Court to remand this case for further proceedings dur to various legal errors 1 Justice Act (“EAJA”) and $402.00 in costs under

. Dkt. No. 29. 2 Following remand, the Social Security Administration issued a Notice of Award and 3 awarded plaintiff past-due benefits totaling $81,231.12. Dkt. No. 30 at 2. The Social Security 4 Administration withheld $20,307.78 of the award, equal to 25 percent of the past-due benefits, in 5 the event plaintiff’s counsel were to petition for attorney’s fees. Dkt. No. 30-1 at 3. Counsel now 6 seeks $20,307.78 in attorney’s fees. Dkt. No. 30 ¶¶ 2, 3. In support of the motion, plaintiff’s counsel 7 submitted the Notice of Award, the fee agreement with plaintiff, along with a statement of attorney 8 time expended, including counsel’s non-contingent hourly rate of $325.00 and experience in 9 disability law. See Dkt. No. 30. The government has not opposed the motion but asks that the Court 10 independently determine whether counsel’s fee request is reasonable. 11 12 LEGAL STANDARD 13 The Social Security Act provides that when a plaintiff prevails on a judgment, the Court may 14 determine a reasonable fee for the plaintiff’s counsel, which can be no more that 25 percent of the 15 plaintiff’s entitlement to the total past-due benefits.

(b)(1)(A). The Court must 16 review counsel’s request for fees “as an independent check” to assure that the contingency fee 17 agreement will “yield reasonable results in particular cases.” See Gisbrecht v. Barnhart,

789, 807 (2002). Section 406(b) “does not displace contingent-fee agreements within the statutory 19 ceiling; instead, § 406(b) instructs courts to review for reasonableness fees yielded by those 20 agreements.” Id. at 808–09. In making its determination, the Court should consider the character 21 of the representation and the results achieved. Id. at 808. An award of § 406 fees is offset by any 22 award of attorney fees granted under the EAJA. Id. at 796. 23 24 DISCUSSION 25 Here, the Court finds that the amount of fees sought is reasonable. As an initial matter, the 26 Court finds that the fee agreement is within the statutory ceiling; the fee agreement between plaintiff 27 and counsel provides that if plaintiff receives a favorable decision after an appeal to federal court, 1 Dkt. No. 30-2 at 1. The Court further finds that plaintiff's counsel assumed a substantial risk of not 2 || recovering attorney’s fees because the claims had been denied after exhausting administrative 3 || remedies. The Court further finds that the work by plaintiff's counsel was not insubstantial; 4 || plaintiff's counsel was successful in having this matter remanded back to the Social Security 5 Administration, which then awarded $80,231.12 in past-due benefits as well as ongoing benefits. 6 || Plaintiffs counsel spent 40.5 hours on the matter, for an effective hourly rate of $501.43. Dkt. No. 7 30-3 at 3. Counsel seeks $20,307.78 in attorney’s fees, which would result in plaintiff paying 8 counsel a net fee under § 406(b) of $12,807.78, or 15.76 percent of past-due benefits. After review 9 of the record, the Court finds that the requested attorney’s fees are reasonable based on the quality 10 || of representation and the outcome achieved, and that the requested fees do not constitute a windfall. 11 See Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808; Crawford v. Astrue,

(9th Cir. 2009).

13 CONCLUSION 14 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS plaintiffs motion for attorney’s fees 3 15 and awards fees in the amount of $20,307.78 pursuant to

(b)(1)(A). Upon receipt a 16 || of that payment, the Court further ORDERS plaintiffs counsel to reimburse plaintiff in the amount 3 17 of $7,500.00 previously paid under the EAJA, for a net total attorney’s fees under § 406(b) of || $12,807.78. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: March 3, 2023 22 x A dp | Ly pi SUSAN ILLSTON 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28