1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JACK HAMM, Case No. 2:21-cv-00645-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL ATTORNEY FEES UNDER 42 U.S.C. 14 MARTIN O’MALLEY, § 406(b) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 15 SECURITY, ECF No. 26 16 Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff’s counsel seeks an award of attorney fees under

(b).1 ECF No. 19 26. Plaintiff entered into a contingent fee agreement that provided that he would pay counsel 20 twenty-five percent of any award of past-due benefits. ECF No. 26-2. After this court remanded 21 the action for further proceedings, plaintiff was found disabled and awarded $47,601.72 in past- 22 due benefits. See ECF No. 21; ECF No. 26-1. Counsel now seeks attorney fees in the amount of 23 $11,900.00, which is equal to twenty-five percent of total past-due benefits that plaintiff was 24 awarded, with a credit to plaintiff for the fees previously awarded under the Equal Access to 25 Justice Act (“EAJA”),

(d), in the amount of $6,500.00. ECF No. 26; see also 26 ECF No. 25. 27 1 Although the motion for fees was filed under plaintiff’s name, plaintiff’s counsel is the 28 real party in interest. See Gisbrecht v. Barnhart,

, 798 n.6 (2002). 1 An attorney is entitled to reasonable fees for successfully representing social security 2 claimants in district court. 3 Whenever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant under this subchapter who was represented before the court by an 4 attorney, the court may determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such representation, not in excess of 25 percent 5 of the total of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled by reason of such judgment. 6 7

(b)(1)(A). Rather than being paid by the government, fees under section 406(b) 8 are paid by the claimant from the awarded past-due benefits. Crawford v. Astrue,

, 9 1147 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (citing Gisbrecht,

). The twenty-five percent 10 statutory maximum fee is not an automatic entitlement; the court must ensure that the requested 11 fee is reasonable. Gisbrecht,

(“We hold that § 406(b) does not displace 12 contingent-fee agreements within the statutory ceiling; instead, § 406(b) instructs courts to review 13 for reasonableness fees yielded by those agreements.”). In assessing whether a fee is reasonable, 14 the court should consider “the character of the representation and the results the representative 15 achieved.” Id. at 808. A “court may properly reduce the fee for substandard performance, delay, 16 or benefits that are not in proportion to the time spent on the case.” Crawford,

. 17 The court finds that the requested fees are reasonable. Counsel’s billing records reflect a 18 total of 30 hours of attorney time on this case. ECF No. 26 at 5-6; see also ECF No. 23 at 3-5. 19 Counsel’s request for $11,900.00, which is the equivalent of the statutory maximum, would 20 constitute an hourly rate of approximately $396.67 for attorney services. Counsel did not engage 21 in dilatory conduct or perform in a substandard manner. Indeed, counsel’s representation resulted 22 in this matter being remanded for further proceedings, which resulted in a favorable decision and 23 an award of benefits. See ECF Nos. 13, 21. Given counsel’s experience, the result obtained in 24 this case, and the risk of loss in representing plaintiff, the court finds the hourly rate reasonable. 25 See, e.g., De Vivo v. Berryhill,

(E.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2018) (awarding fees at 26 effective hourly range of $1,116.26); Jamieson v. Astrue,

(E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 27 2011) (finding fees at effective hourly rate of $1,169.49 reasonable);

(S.D. 28 Cal. Aug. 11, 2016) (awarding fees at effective hourly rate of $1,063); Palos v. Colvin,

| 5110243 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2016) ) (finding fees at effective hourly rate of $1,546.39 2 || reasonable). 3 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 4 1. The motion for attorney fees, ECF No. 26, is granted. 5 2. Plaintiffs counsel is awarded $11,900.00 in fees pursuant to

(b). 6 3. Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to reimburse plaintiff the sum of $6,500.00 for 7 previously paid EAJA fees pursuant to

(d). 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 ( 1 Ow — Dated: _ April 4, 2024 q_———. 11 JEREMY D. PETERSON 0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28