1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LADAWN BENCIA ROBLES, Case No. 1:22-cv-00598-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES PURSUANT TO 42 13 v. U.S.C. § 406(b)2

14 MARTIN O’MALLEY, (Doc. No. 20) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 15 SECURITY,1 ORDER FOR CLERK TO MAIL A COPY OF ORDER TO PLAINTIFF 16 Defendant.

17 18 Francesco P. Benavides (“Counsel”) of the Law Offices of Francesco Benavides, attorney 19 for Ladawn Bencia Robles (“Plaintiff”), filed a motion seeking attorney’s fees pursuant to 42

(b) on October 11, 2024. (Doc. No. 20). Plaintiff was served with the motion and 21 advised she had 14 days to object. (Id. at 2, 8). No opposition has been filed as of the date of this 22 Order. (See docket). For the reasons set forth below, the motion for attorney’s fees is granted in 23 the amount of $11,950.00 subject to an offset of $7,200.00 in fees previously awarded on January 24 20, 2023, under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA),

(d). (Doc. No. 19). 25 1 The Court has substituted Martin O’Malley, who has been appointed the Acting Commissioner of Social 26 Security, as the defendant in this suit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 2 Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 27 §636(c)(1). (Doc. No. 10).

28 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 On May 20, 2022, Plaintiff brought the underlying action seeking judicial review of a 3 final administrative decision denying Plaintiff’s claim for supplemental security income and 4 disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. (Doc. No. 1). On January 4, 2023, 5 the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to a voluntary remand pursuant to sentence four of 42

(g). (Doc. Nos. 15, 16). The Court entered an award of $7,200.00 for attorney fees 7 under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) on August 4, 2023. (Doc. Nos. 18, 19). 8 On remand, the Commissioner found Plaintiff disabled beginning in February 2019. 9 (Doc. No. 20-1 at 2). Plaintiff was awarded $64,228.723 in retroactive benefits. (See Doc. No. 10 20-1 at 2). On October 11, 2024, Counsel filed this motion for attorney’s fees in the amount of 11 $11,950.00 with an offset of $7,200.00 for EAJA fees already awarded. (Doc. No. 20 at 1). 12 Counsel argues these fees are reasonable because the contingency fee agreement, which Plaintiff 13 signed, permits Counsel to retain 25% of the past-due benefits, and the requested amount is 14 reasonable. (Doc. No. 20 at 3-5; Doc. No. 20-3). Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion 15 indicating they would neither support nor oppose Counsel’s request for attorney fees pursuant to 16

(b). (Doc. No. 21). 17 II. APPLICABLE LAW 18 Attorneys may seek a reasonable fee under the Social Security Act for cases in which they 19 have successfully represented social security claimants. Section 406(b) allows:

20 Whenever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant under this subchapter who was represented before the court by an attorney, 21 the court may determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such representation, not in excess of 25 percent of 22 the total of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled…. 23

(b)(1)(A). Counsel for a plaintiff may recover attorneys’ fees under both 42 24

25 3 Plaintiff noted that the Notice of Award did not specify the total amount of retroactive benefits, and “based on the information in the Notice of Award” calculated the total amount awarded as $76,667.50. 26 (Doc. No. 20 at 3). However, the Court calculates the total amount awarded as $64,228.72 by multiplying the 25% of past due benefits identified in the Notice of Award by four ($16,057.18 x 4). (Doc. No. 20-1 at 27 2). Regardless, the amount of attorney fees requested by Plaintiff’s counsel of $11,950.00 still falls well below the 25% of the past due benefits Plaintiff agreed to pay “for successful prosecution of [the] matter.” 28 (See Doc. No. 20-3).

(b) and EAJA. Gisbrecht v. Barnhart,

(2002). Counsel, however, 2 must refund to the plaintiff the amount of the smaller fee.

3 Fees in social security cases “are usually set in contingency-fee agreements and are 4 payable from past-due benefits awarded to the claimant.” Biggerstaff v. Saul,

, 70 5 (9th Cir. 2020). The fee is not borne by the Commissioner. Crawford v. Astrue,

, 6 1147 (9th Cir. 2009). This provision’s purpose is in part to “ensure that attorneys representing 7 successful claimants would not risk nonpayment of [appropriate] fees.” Gisbrecht,

805 (internal quotations omitted). When weighing the adequacy of requested attorney’s fees, 9 Courts should respect “the primacy of lawful attorney-client fee agreements.”

. 10 Counsel still bears the burden, however, of showing the requested fees are reasonable.

. 11 In determining reasonableness, the court may consider the experience of the attorney, the results 12 they achieved, and whether there is evidence the attorney artificially increased the hours worked 13 or the hourly rate charged.

; Crawford,

. Generally, any 406(b) 14 award is offset by attorney fees granted under the EAJA. Parrish v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 15

(9th Cir. 2012) 16 III. ANALYSIS 17 Here, Plaintiff signed a fee agreement agreeing to pay Counsel 25% of past due benefits 18 awarded to Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 20-3). Counsel was ultimately successful in securing $64,228.72 19 in retroactive benefits for Plaintiff. (See Doc. No. 20-1 at 2). In support of this motion, Counsel 20 submitted a time sheet indicating the firm expended 31.9 hours in attorney time on this matter. 21 (Doc. No. 20 at 4; Doc. No. 20-4). The time Counsel spent in successfully attaining Plaintiff’s 22 benefits does not appear inflated. 23 Counsel’s request for $11,950.00 in fees for 31.9 hours of work results in an hourly rate of 24 $374.60 for the attorney work. Considering the effective rate of both attorney and paralegal hours 25 in cases involving social security contingency fee arrangements this rate appears consistent with 26 those approved by Ninth Circuit courts. Crawford v. Astrue,

(9th Cir. 2009) 27 (explaining that the majority opinion found reasonable effective hourly rates equaling $519.00, 28 $875.00, and $902.00) (J. Clifton, concurring in part and dissenting in part); Mayfield v. Comm’r 1 | of Soc. Sec., No. 1:16-cv-01084-SAB, ECF No. 24, at 5 (E.D. Cal. March 19, 2020) (approving 2 | hours rate of $1,025.22 for paralegal and attorney time); Biggerstaff v. Saul, 840 Fed. App’x 69, 3 | 71 (9th Cir. 2020) (affirming $1,400.00 per hour for combined attorney and paralegal work). 4 | Attorney hourly rates inevitably rise as their experience increases, and Counsel has been 5 || practicing social security law for 14 years. (Doc. No. 20 at 6). Based on the foregoing, the Court 6 | finds the requested fees of $11,950.00 are reasonable. Gisbrecht,

. 7 An award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 406(b) in the amount of $11,950.00 is, therefore, 8 | appropriate. An award of § 406(b) fees, however, must be offset by any prior award of attorneys’ 9 | fees granted under the EAJA.

(d); Gisbrecht,

. As Plaintiff was 10 | previously awarded $7,200.00 in fees pursuant to the EAJA, Counsel shall refund this amount to 11 | Plaintiff. 12 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 13 1. Plaintiff's Counsel’s motion for an award of attorney’s fees under § 406(b) (Doc. No. 14 20) is GRANTED. 15 2. Plaintiff's Counsel is awarded $11,950.00 in attorney fees pursuant to

406(b). 17 3. Counsel shall refund to Plaintiff $7,200.00 of the § 406(b) fees awarded as an offset 18 for the EAJA fees previously awarded pursuant to

(d). 19 4. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to serve a copy of this Order on 20 Plaintiff Ladawn Bencia Robles, 600 N. Acacia Street, Woodlake, CA, 93286. 21 22 Dated: _ October 29, 2024 oe Zh. Sareh Back 23 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25 26 27 28