1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MISHELLE G., Case No. 20-cv-04149-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: MOTION FOR 9 v. ATTORNEYS FEES PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C § 406(B) 10 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Re: Dkt. No. 28 Defendant. 11

12 13 Plaintiff’s counsel, Katherine Siegfried, moves for attorney’s fees pursuant to

406(b) for representing Plaintiff in her successful appeal of the Commissioner of the Social 15 Security Administration’s denial of social security disability benefits. (Dkt. No. 28.) After careful 16 consideration of Plaintiff’s motion and the relevant legal authority, the Court determines oral 17 argument is unnecessary, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and GRANTS the motion for attorney’s 18 fees pursuant to Section 406(b). 19 BACKGROUND 20 This case stems from Plaintiff’s appeal of the Social Security Administration’s (“SSA’s”) 21 denial of social security benefits for a combination of mental and physical impairments, including: 22 obesity, stenosis of the lumbar spine, status post back fusion surgery followed by hardware 23 removal, and lumbar degenerative disc disease. On November 21, 2021, the Court granted the 24 parties’ joint stipulation to voluntary remand pursuant to sentence four of

(g) and 25 remanded the action to the SSA for further proceedings. (Dkt. No. 25.) On December 30, 2021, 26 the Court granted the parties’ stipulation and awarded Plaintiff’s counsel $9,800 in fees under the 27 Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”),

(d). (Dkt. No. 27.) 1 Plaintiff was notified she had been awarded disability benefits as of September 2018 and she 2 would be receiving a check for $77,523.67 in past due benefits. (Id. at 1.) The notice also advised 3 Plaintiff SSA withheld $25,841.23 from Plaintiff’s award for attorney’s fees as 25 percent of 4 Plaintiff’s past-due benefits. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff’s counsel thereafter filed the now pending motion 5 for attorney’s fees for work performed in this Court under Section 406(b). (Dkt. No. 28.) 6 Pursuant to Plaintiff and her counsel’s contingency fee agreement for this case, counsel may seek 7 fees up to 25 percent of any past-due benefits awarded to Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 28-3 at 1.) Counsel 8 accordingly requests fees in the amount of $20,000. (Dkt. No. 21-1 at ¶¶ 6-8.) Plaintiff’s counsel 9 served Plaintiff with a copy of the motion. (Dkt. No. 28-1 at ¶ 8.) The Commissioner filed a 10 response in which he took no position on Plaintiff’s motion. (Dkt. No. 29.) 11 LEGAL STANDARD 12 Section 406(b) provides “[w]henever a court renders a judgment favorable to a [social 13 security] claimant under this subchapter who was represented before the court by an attorney, the 14 court may determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee” to claimant's attorney; 15 such a fee can be no more than 25 percent of the total of past-due benefits awarded to the claimant. 16

(b)(1)(A). A court may award such a fee even if the court’s judgment did not 17 immediately result in an award of past-due benefits; where the court, for instance, remands for 18 further consideration, the court may calculate the 25 percent fee based upon any past-due benefits 19 awarded on remand. See, e.g., Crawford v. Astrue,

(9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). 20 Under Section 406(b), a court must serve “as an independent check” of contingency fee 21 agreements “to assure that they yield reasonable results.” Gisbrecht v. Barnhart,

, 22 807 (2002). Section 406(b) “does not displace contingent-fee agreements within the statutory 23 ceiling; instead, [Section] 406(b) instructs courts to review for reasonableness fees yielded by 24 those agreements.”

. The court’s review of a fee agreement is based on the character 25 of the representation and the results achieved, see Gisbrecht,

, and can include 26 analyzing: whether counsel provided substandard representation; any dilatory conduct by counsel 27 to accumulate additional fees; whether the requested fees are excessively large in relation to the 1 1151-52. 2 A court must offset an award of Section 406(b) attorneys’ fees by any award of fees 3 granted under the EAJA. See Gisbrecht,

; Parrish v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 4

(9th Cir. 2012). 5 DISCUSSION 6 Plaintiff’s counsel has demonstrated the amount of fees requested is reasonable for the 7 services rendered. See Gisbrecht,

. 8 First, while not dispositive, Plaintiff’s and counsel’s contingency fee agreement is within 9 the 25 percent threshold permitted under Section 406(b), as the agreement provides counsel will 10 not ask for a fee of more than 25 percent of the total past-due benefits awarded. (Dkt. No. 28-3 at 11 1.) 12 Second, there is no indication a reduction in fees is warranted due to any substandard 13 performance by counsel or counsel delayed these proceedings in an effort to increase the amount 14 of fees awarded. To the contrary, counsel provided substantial work and achieved favorable results 15 for Plaintiff as the Commissioner agreed to a voluntary remand for further proceedings after 16 receipt of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 24.) 17 Nor is the amount of fees, $20,000, excessive; in fact, this is less than the 25 percent the 18 SSA withheld from Plaintiff’s past-due benefits. (Dkt. No. 28-1 at 3.) See, e.g., Ciletti v. 19 Berryhill, No. 17-CV-05646-EMC,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2019) (awarding 20 $35,442.00 in fees following an award of $150,993 in past-due benefits); G.S. v. Kijakazi, No. 19- 21 CV-07543-JSC,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2022) (awarding fees in the amount 22 of $30,233 following a past-due benefit 3 award of $120,932); Eckert v. Berryhill, No. 15-CV- 23 04461-JCS,

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2017) (awarding $16,566.25 in fees 24 following an award of $66,265 in retroactive benefits); Devigili v. Berryhill, No. 15-CV-02237-SI, 25

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2017) (awarding $15,278.00 in fees following an 26 award of $76,391.00 in retroactive benefits). 27 Lastly, the Court finds Plaintiff’s counsel assumed a substantial risk of not recovering fees 1 prior to the filing of this action. (Dkt. No. 28-1 at 4/4.) At that time, the SSA had completely 2 || denied Plaintiff any requested benefits, and counsel could not know the Commissioner would 3 agree toaremand. Accordingly, the Court finds the amount of requested fees is reasonable. 4 CONCLUSION 5 For the reasons described above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for fees. 6 The Commissioner is directed to certify fees under

(b) in the amount of $20,000 7 || payable to the Law Offices of Katherine Siegfried. Plaintiffs counsel is ordered to refund the 8 previously awarded EAJA fees, in the amount of $9,800 to Plaintiff. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: July 20, 2023

2 ne ACQUELINE SCOTT CORLE 13 United States District Judge

15

16

17

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