1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TIFFANY MARIE BEGGS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01579-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES PURSUANT TO 42 13 v. U.S.C. § 406(b)1

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

17 18 Stuart T. Barasch, Esq. (“Counsel”) of the Olisnky Law Group, attorney for Tiffany Marie 19 Beggs (“Plaintiff”), filed a motion seeking attorney’s fees pursuant to

(b) on 20 January 17, 2025. (Doc. No. 20 “Motion”). An exact copy of the Motion was sent to Plaintiff via 21 certified mail on the same date. (Doc. No. 20-7). No opposition has been filed as of the date of 22 this Order. (See docket). For the reasons set forth below, the motion for attorney’s fees is 23 granted in the amount of $49,504.502 subject to an offset of $6,755.21 in fees previously awarded 24 on January 4, 2023, under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA),

(d). (Doc. 25 1 Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 26 §636(c)(1). (Doc. No. 12). 2 As noted in Counsel’s Motion, 25% percent of the cumulative past-due benefits is $56,704.50. (Doc. No. 27 20-1 at 3). However, the total requested fee here accounts for the previously awarded 406(a) fees in the amount of $7,200.00 for administrative work done before the agency, reducing the requested § 406(b) fees 28 to $49,504.50. (Id.). 1 No. 19). 2 I. BACKGROUND 3 On October 25, 2021, Plaintiff brought the underlying action seeking judicial review of a 4 final administrative decision denying Plaintiff’s claim for supplemental security income and 5 disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. (Doc. No. 2). September 14, 2022, 6 the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to a voluntary remand pursuant to sentence four of 42

(g). (Doc. Nos. 14, 15). The Court entered an award of $6,755.21 for attorney fees 8 under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) on January 4, 2023. (Doc. Nos. 17, 19). 9 On remand, the Commissioner found Plaintiff disabled beginning in November 2018. 10 (Doc. No. 20-3 at 1). Plaintiff was awarded $153,097.00 in retroactive benefits. (Id. at 3). In 11 addition, Plaintiff’s child E.M. was awarded $15,860.00 in retroactive benefits; Plaintiff’s child 12 T.M. was awarded $7,611.00 in retroactive benefits; Plaintiff’s child A.B. was awarded 13 $25,125.00 in retroactive benefits; and Plaintiff’s child M.B. was awarded $25,125.00 in 14 retroactive benefits.3 (Id. at 8-21). The total combined retroactive award was $226,818.00. On 15 January 17, 2025, Counsel filed this motion for attorney’s fees in the amount of $49,504.50 with 16 an offset of $6,755.21 for EAJA fees already awarded. (Doc. No. 20). Counsel argues these fees 17 are reasonable because the contingency fee agreement, which Plaintiff signed, permits Counsel to 18 retain 25% of the past-due benefits, and the requested amount is reasonable. (Doc. No. 20 at 2-3). 19 Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion indicating they would neither support nor oppose 20 Counsel’s request for attorney fees pursuant to

(b). (Doc. No. 22). 21 II. APPLICABLE LAW 22 Attorneys may seek a reasonable fee under the Social Security Act for cases in which they 23 have successfully represented social security claimants. Section 406(b) allows:

24 Whenever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant under this subchapter who was represented before the court by an attorney, 25 the court may determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such representation, not in excess of 25 percent of 26

27 3 The Court notes the total past-due award amounts for Plaintiff and each of her children were not included in the Notice of Award; rather, Plaintiff calculated the amount by multiplying 25% of the past due benefits 28 amount by four. (See generally Doc. No. 20-3). 1 the total of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled…. 2

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

(b) and EAJA. Gisbrecht v. Barnhart,

(2002). Counsel, however, 4 must refund to the plaintiff the amount of the smaller fee.

5 Fees in social security cases “are usually set in contingency-fee agreements and are 6 payable from past-due benefits awarded to the claimant.” Biggerstaff v. Saul,

, 70 7 (9th Cir. 2020). The fee is not borne by the Commissioner. Crawford v. Astrue,

, 8 1147 (9th Cir. 2009). This provision’s purpose is in part to “ensure that attorneys representing 9 successful claimants would not risk nonpayment of [appropriate] fees.” Gisbrecht,

805 (internal quotations omitted). When weighing the adequacy of requested attorney’s fees, 11 Courts should respect “the primacy of lawful attorney-client fee agreements.”

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

. 13 In determining reasonableness, the court may consider the experience of the attorney, the results 14 they achieved, and whether there is evidence the attorney artificially increased the hours worked 15 or the hourly rate charged.

; Crawford,

. Generally, any 406(b) 16 award is offset by attorney fees granted under the EAJA. Parrish v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 17

(9th Cir. 2012) 18 III. ANALYSIS 19 Here, Plaintiff signed a fee agreement agreeing to pay Counsel 25% of past due benefits 20 awarded to Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 20-2). Counsel was ultimately successful in securing 21 $226,818.00 in retroactive benefits for Plaintiff and her children. (Doc. No. 20-3). In support of 22 this motion, Counsel submitted a time sheet indicating the firm expended 31.9 hours in combined 23 attorney and paralegal time on this matter. (Doc. No. 20-1 at 3; Doc. No. 20-4). The time 24 Counsel spent in successfully attaining Plaintiff’s benefits does not appear inflated. 25 Counsel’s request for $49,504.50 in fees for 31.9 hours of work results in an hourly rate of 26 $1,551.87 for the combined attorney and paralegal work. (Doc. No. 20-1 at 3). Considering the 27 effective rate of both attorney and paralegal hours in cases involving social security contingency 28 fee arrangements this rate appears consistent with those approved by Ninth Circuit courts. 1 | Crawford v. Astrue,

(9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that the majority opinion 2 | found reasonable effective hourly rates equaling $519.00, $875.00, and $902.00) (J. Clifton, 3 | concurring in part and dissenting in part); Mayfield v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:16-cv-01084- 4 | SAB, ECF No. 24, at 5 (E.D. Cal. March 19, 2020) (approving hours rate of $1,025.22 for 5 | paralegal and attorney time); Biggerstaff v. Saul, 840 Fed. App’x 69, 71 (9th Cir. 2020) 6 | (affirming $1,400.00 per hour for combined attorney and paralegal work). Based on the 7 | foregoing, the Court finds the requested fees of $49,504.50 are reasonable. Gisbrecht,

| at 807-08. 9 An award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 406(b) in the amount of $49,504.50 is, therefore, 10 | appropriate. An award of § 406(b) fees, however, must be offset by any prior award of attorneys’ 11 | fees granted under the EAJA.

(d); Gisbrecht,

. As Plaintiff was 12 | previously awarded $6,755.21 in fees pursuant to the EAJA, Counsel shall refund this amount to 13 | Plaintiff. 14 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 15 1. Plaintiff's Counsel’s motion for an award of attorney’s fees under § 406(b) (Doc. No. 16 20) is GRANTED. 17 2. Plaintiff's Counsel is awarded $49,504.50 in attorney fees pursuant to

406(b). 19 3. Counsel shall refund to Plaintiff $6,755.21 of the § 406(b) fees awarded as an offset 20 for the EAJA fees previously awarded pursuant to

(d). 21 4. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to serve a copy of this Order on 22 Plaintiff Tiffany Marie Beggs, 1241 South Mountain Street, Visalia, CA, 93277. 23 ** | Dated: _ February 6, 2025 Wiha. □□ fares Back 5 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27 28