1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 SHERRY LYNN D. K., Case No. 20-cv-02032-AGT

9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING AMENDED 10 v. MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO

(b) 11 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Re: Dkt. No. 29 Defendant. 12

13 14 Plaintiff brought this action for judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s 15 decision finding her not disabled and thus denying her claim for disability benefits. On the 16 parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion and remanded 17 the case for further proceedings. Dkt. 22. The Court subsequently approved the parties’ 18 stipulation for an award of $4,250 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act 19 (“EAJA”),

(d). Dkt. 24. On remand, an ALJ found plaintiff disabled and 20 awarded her past-due benefits in the amount of $133,879.12.1 See Dkt. 25-2 (ALJ decision on 21 remand); Dkt. 25-3 (notice of award). 22 Lawrence Rohlfing, who represented plaintiff in this matter under a contingent fee 23 agreement, has moved for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to

(b). Dkts. 25 & 24 29; see Dkt. 25-1 (fee agreement). Rohlfing initially requested a fee award of $23,500, and he 25 then amended his fee motion to seek an award of $15,169.78 after the Social Security 26 1 The notice of award letter did not provide a cumulative total of past-due benefits but rather 27 indicated benefits due for various periods. See Dkt. 25-3 at 1–2. Based on the indicated 25% 1 Administration authorized a fee of $18,300 (or 13.7% of the past-due benefits awarded) pursuant 2 to

(a). See Dkt. 29. The $15,169.78 requested fee represents 11.3% of the past- 3 due benefits awarded. Rohlfing has submitted timesheets showing that the total attorney and 4 paralegal time spent on the district court proceedings was 22.45 hours (17.75 attorney hours and 5 4.7 paralegal hours). See Dkt. 25 at 20 (Rohlfing Decl.) ¶ 4; Dkt. 25-4 (timesheets). Rohlfing 6 timely served plaintiff with both the original and amended fee motions via first-class mail. See 7 Dkt. 25 at 23; Dkt. 29 at 8. The Court has received no objection or any other response from 8 plaintiff. The Commissioner filed a response to the original fee motion, taking no position on the 9 reasonableness of the requested fee award, and did not file a response to the amended fee motion. 10 See Dkt. 27. 11 Having considered the amended fee motion and supporting materials, the applicable case 12 law, and the record in this case, the Court is satisfied that the fees requested under § 406(b) are 13 reasonable. First, the contingent fee agreement between plaintiff and Rohlfing provides for a fee 14 of “25% of the past due benefits awarded upon reversal of any unfavorable ALJ decision,” Dkt. 15 25-1 at 1, which is consistent with the 25% statutory cap set forth in § 406(b). The requested fee 16 amount, $15,169.78, likewise complies. Under the fee agreement, Rohlfing is entitled to 17 $33,469.78 (25% of the past-due benefits awarded), and he has already been awarded $18,300 18 under § 406(a), which leaves $15,169.78—the exact amount Rohlfing now seeks.2 Second, there 19 is no indication that Rohlfing provided substandard representation or that he delayed proceedings 20 in an effort to increase the amount of fees awarded. To the contrary, Rohlfing achieved an 21 excellent result for plaintiff, consisting of a substantial award of past-due benefits, and as noted, 22 no party objected to the fee request. Finally, the requested fee of $15,169.78 for 22.45 hours of 23 work translates to an hourly rate of approximately $675.71. See L.M. v. Kijakazi,

7251505, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2023) (“In considering the effective hourly rate as a measure of 25 reasonableness, it is not uncommon for courts to calculate that rate based on the total number of 26 2 As Rohlfing acknowledges, a court must offset an award of § 406(b) attorney’s fees by any 27 award of fees under EAJA. See Gisbrecht v. Barnhart,

(2002) (explaining that ] attorney and paralegal hours.”). California district courts have awarded fees under § 406(b) with 2 || much higher effective hourly rates. See McCullough v. Berryhill,

, at *2 (N.D. 3 Cal. Nov. 15, 2018) (citing cases awarding effective hourly rates ranging between $1,000 and 4 $1,500). In this context, the fees sought by Rohlfing are reasonable. 5 Accordingly, the Court finds that Rohlfing’s request for $15,169.78 in fees under § 406(b) 6 || is reasonable under the facts of this case. Rohlfing will be required to reimburse plaintiff for all 7 || fees previously awarded in this case under EAJA. 8 ok 9 For the reasons stated above, Rohlfing’s amended motion for attorney’s fees under 42 10 || U.S.C. § 406(b) is granted in the amount of $15,169.78. Rohlfing must refund to plaintiff the 11 $4,250 previously awarded under EAJA. IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: November 20, 2023 14 ( |

ALEX G. TSE = 16 United States Magistrate Judge

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