Lovett v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA LEANDRA LOVETT, CASE NO. 3:22-cv-05675-DGE Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 v. REGARDING ATTORNEY FEES MOTION (DKT. NO. 17.)

13 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees. (Dkt. No. 17.) The real party in interest is Plaintiff’s counsel, David P. Oliver. (See id. at 1.) There are multiple irregularities with the motion that require explanation.

The motion seeks attorney fees in the amount of $4,999.50. (Id.) Under 42 U.S.C. § 20 406(b), the Court may allow a reasonable fee for an attorney who represented a Social Security claimant before the Court and obtained a favorable judgment, as long as such fee is not in excess of 25% of the total past-due benefits. See Grisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002). Plaintiff received $56,318 in past due benefits. (Dkt. No. 17-1 at 1.) Twenty five percent of that amount is $14,079.50. (See id.) But here, counsel has deducted $9,080.00 as an “Administrative Fee” and then arrived at the requested $4,999.50 attorney fee as the difference between twenty-five percent of the recovery and this “Admin Fee.” (See id; Dkt. No. 17-2 at 1.)

4 The Court does not understand what an “Administrative Fee” refers to in this context.

5 Nor is it clear from the record whether this sum has already been collected from Plaintiff, or if Attorney Oliver intends to do so following the Court’s order on the motion. This requires explanation. The Court is concerned that attorney fees, by another name, may have been or would be collected without approval by the Court.

9 Additionally, Plaintiff’s motion appears to be generated from a template, and it states, “Previously, this Court awarded Plaintiff’s attorney a fee of N/A pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).” (Dkt. No. 17 at 1) (emphasis in original.) This notation is confusing.

12 Previously, on August 14, 2023, Plaintiff moved for attorney fees under the EAJA in the amount of $571.71, but a Notice of Filing Deficiency was issued because the motion lacked supporting documents. (See Dkt. Nos. 14, 15, 16.) Plaintiff never corrected the deficiency, and the motion was not granted. It is unclear if or how this sum is accounted for in the present motion.

16 Accordingly, Attorney David P. Oliver is ORDERED to explain 1) what is the “administrative fee” in the amount of $9,080 referenced in the motion and how that amount was calculated, 2) how and when that sum has been or will be collected, and to 3) confirm that Plaintiff is not claiming any past award under the EAJA and that no such sum is included in the present motion.

21 Counsel shall respond to this Order no later than April 4, 2025.

22 Dated this 28th day of March, 2025. a 1 David G. Estudillo United States District Judge