1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROSEZETTA VIVIAN HUDSON, Case No. 2:19-cv-2390-JAM-JDP (SS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of 15 Social Security, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff’s counsel seeks an award of attorney fees under

(b).1 ECF No. 19 38. Plaintiff entered into a contingent fee agreement providing that he would pay counsel twenty- 20 five percent of any award of past-due benefits. ECF No. 38-4 at 1. After this court remanded for 21 further proceedings, plaintiff was found disabled and awarded $48,763 in past-due benefits. ECF 22 No. 38-5 at 3. Plaintiff’s counsel requests $12,190.75 in attorney fees, which is the statutory 23 maximum, and which equates to an effective hourly rate of $395.42. ECF No. 38-1 at 4. 24 An attorney is entitled to reasonable fees for successfully representing social security 25 claimants in district court. 26 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 Whenever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant under this subchapter who was represented before the court by an 2 attorney, the court may determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such representation, not in excess of 25 percent 3 of the total of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled by reason of such judgment. 4 5

(b)(1)(A). Rather than being paid by the government, fees under section 406(b) 6 are paid by the claimant from the awarded past-due benefits. Crawford v. Astrue,

, 7 1147 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (citing Gisbrecht,

). The twenty-five percent 8 statutory maximum fee is not an automatic entitlement; the court must ensure that the requested 9 fee is reasonable. Gisbrecht,

(“We hold that § 406(b) does not displace 10 contingent-fee agreements within the statutory ceiling; instead, § 406(b) instructs courts to review 11 for reasonableness fees yielded by those agreements.”). In assessing whether a fee is reasonable, 12 the court should consider “the character of the representation and the results the representative 13 achieved.” Id. at 808. A “court may properly reduce the fee for substandard performance, delay, 14 or benefits that are not in proportion to the time spent on the case.” Crawford,

. 15 The court finds that the requested fees are reasonable. Counsel’s billing records reflect a 16 total of 30.83 hours of attorney time on this case. ECF No. 38-6 at 1-4. Counsel’s request for 17 $12,190.75, which is the statutory maximum, would constitute an hourly rate of approximately 18 $395.42 for attorney services. Counsel did not engage in dilatory conduct or perform in a 19 substandard manner. Indeed, counsel’s representation resulted in this matter being remanded for 20 further proceedings, which resulted in a favorable decision and an award of benefits. Given 21 counsel’s experience, the result obtained in this case, and the risk of loss in representing plaintiff, 22 the court finds the hourly rate reasonable. See, e.g., De Vivo v. Berryhill,

23 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2018) (awarding fees at an effective hourly rate of $1,116.26). 24 Counsel notes that the $7,635 award should be offset by the fees previously awarded 25 under the under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). ECF No. 38 at 2; see ECF No. 35. 26 He also indicates that he will reimburse plaintiff the amount previously awarded under the EAJA. 27 See Gisbrecht v. Barnhart,

(2002) (holding that where attorney’s fees are 28 1 awarded under both EAJA and § 406(b), the attorney must refund the smaller of the two awards 2 | to the plaintiff). 3 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 4 1. The motion for attorney fees, ECF No. 38, is GRANTED. 5 2. Plaintiffs counsel is awarded $12,190.75 in fees pursuant to

(b). 6 3. Upon receipt of the $12,190.75 award, counsel shall refund to plaintiff the sum of 7 | $7,635 previously awarded under the EAJA. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 ( 1 Ow — Dated: _ July 17, 2025 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