(SS) White v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EARL FITZGERALD WHITE ) Case No.: 1:17-cv-00629-BAM ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ) ATTORNEYS’ FEES PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. 13 v. ) § 406(b) ) 14 ANDREW M. SAUL,1 Commissioner of ) (Doc. No. 20) ) Social Security, 15 ) ) Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the Court is counsel for Plaintiff Earl Fitzgerald White’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for 18 attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). (Doc. No. 20). The Commissioner of Social Security 19 (the “Commissioner”) has filed a response to the motion analyzing the fee request but taking no 20 position as to its reasonableness. (Doc. No. 22). Having reviewed the motion and its supporting 21 documentation, as well as the case file, the Court GRANTS the motion and awards attorneys’ fees in 22 the amount of $20,000.00. 23 I. Relevant Background 24 The Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing entered into a written contingent fee agreement with 25 Plaintiff dated April 4, 2017, which provided that “[i]n consideration of the services to be performed by 26 27 1 Andrew M. Saul is now the Commissioner of Social Security. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of 28 Civil Procedure, Andrew M. Saul is substituted for Acting Commissioner Nancy A. Berryhill as the defendant in this suit. 1 the Attorney and it being the desire of the Claimant to compensate Attorney out of the proceeds . . . the 2 fee for successful prosecution of this matter is . . . 25% of the past due benefits awarded upon reversal 3 of any unfavorable ALJ decision for work before the Social Security Administration” and “a separate 4 25% of the past due benefits awarded upon reversal of any unfavorable ALJ decision for work before 5 the court.” (Doc. No. 20-1). 6 On May 4, 2017, Plaintiff filed this action seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s denial 7 of benefits. (Doc. No. 1). On February 8, 2018, the parties’ stipulated to a voluntary remand of the 8 case for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. No. 9 15.) The Court approved the parties’ stipulation on February 9, 2018. (Doc. No. 16.) On March 23, 10 2018, the Court approved the parties’ stipulation to award Plaintiff $4,000.00 in attorneys’ fees 11 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (Doc. No. 19.) On remand, the 12 Commissioner granted Plaintiff’s application for benefits and, on January 11, 2020, issued a notice 13 indicating that Plaintiff was entitled to receive $113,597.602 in retroactive benefits. (Doc. No. 20-3.) 14 In the present Motion, Plaintiff’s counsel asks the Court to award attorneys’ fees in the amount 15 of $20,000.00. (Doc. No. 20.) Plaintiff’s counsel contends this fee is reasonable in light of the services 16 rendered and results achieved, as counsel prepared and participated in obtaining a favorable result and 17 the manner and approach to the case saved time and reduced the accumulation of past-due benefits. 18 (Doc. No. 20 at 4). Additionally, the fee counsel seeks is less than twenty percent of the past-due 19 benefits payable to Plaintiff. (Id.) The Commissioner filed a statement in response to the Motion 20 providing an analysis of the fee request but taking no position regarding its reasonableness. (Doc. No. 21 22.) 22 II. Legal Standard 23 An attorney may seek an award of fees for representation of a Social Security claimant who is 24 awarded benefits: 25 26 2 In the motion, counsel for Plaintiff states that the past due benefits total $140,332.50. (Doc. No. 20 at 12.) However, the 27 Notice of Award dated January 11, 2020, does not indicate the total amount of past due benefits awarded and instead states that Plaintiff’s first payment would be $85,531.10 and an additional $28,066.50 has been withheld from Plaintiff’s benefits 28 for attorneys’ fees. (Doc. No. 20-3.) Accordingly, it appears the total amount of past due benefits awarded to Plaintiff is 1 Whenever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant . . . who was represented before the court by an attorney, the court may determine and allow as part of its 2 judgment a reasonable fee for such representation, not in excess of 25 percent of the total of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled by reason of such 3 judgment. . .. 4 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A); see also Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 794 (2002) (Section 406(b) 5 controls fees awarded for representation of Social Security claimants). A contingency fee agreement 6 is unenforceable if it provides for fees exceeding twenty-five percent of past-due benefits. Gisbrecht, 7 supra, 535 U.S. at 807. 8 III. Discussion and Analysis 9 District courts “have been deferential to the terms of contingency fee contracts § 406(b) cases.” 10 Hern v. Barnhart, 262 F.Supp.2d 1033, 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2003). However, the Court must review 11 contingent-fee arrangements “as an independent check, to assure that they yield reasonable results in 12 particular cases.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807. In doing so, the Court should consider “the character of 13 the representation and the results the representative achieved.” Id. at 808. In addition, the Court 14 should consider whether the attorney performed in a substandard manner or engaged in dilatory 15 conduct or excessive delays, and whether the fees are “excessively large in relation to the benefits 16 received.” Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). 17 In this case, after carefully considering the fee agreement and the applicable law, the Court 18 finds Plaintiff’s counsel’s requested fees to be reasonable. In support of his motion for attorneys’ fees 19 under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), Plaintiff’s counsel attached the contingent fee agreement which provided 20 for a contingent fee of twenty-five percent of any awarded retroactive benefits. (Doc. No. 20-1.) 21 Plaintiff’s counsel accordingly accepted the risk of loss in the representation. Plaintiff’s counsel 22 additionally expended a total of 20 hours of attorney time and 3.9 hours of paralegal time while 23 representing Plaintiff before the District Court. (Doc. No. 20-4.) The requested fee amount represents 24 approximately 17.6% of past-due benefits and is below the twenty-five percent maximum. As a result 25 of counsel’s work, the matter was remanded for further proceedings before an Administrative Law 26 Judge, who issued a fully favorable decision and awarded Plaintiff benefits. 27 Plaintiff’s counsel provided a copy of the notice of award and the motion for attorney’s fees to 28 Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 20). Although served with the motion, Plaintiff did not challenge the requested 1 fees which attests to their reasonableness. Likewise, the Commissioner, in its advisory capacity, also 2 declined to dispute the propriety of the amount of the fees requested by Plaintiff’s counsel. (Doc. No. 3 22.) 4 Additionally, there is no indication counsel performed in a substandard manner or engaged in 5 severe dilatory conduct to the extent that a reduction in fees is warranted. To the contrary, Plaintiff 6 was able to secure a fully favorable decision and remand for further proceedings, including an award 7 of past-due benefits. Accordingly, the Court finds the fees sought by counsel are reasonable in light 8 the results achieved in this action, and the amount does not exceed twenty-five percent maximum 9 permitted under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). 10 IV. Conclusion and Order 11 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 12 1. Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (Doc. No. 20) 13 is GRANTED; 14 2. Plaintiff’s counsel is awarded $20,000.00 in attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 15 406(b); and 16 3. Plaintiff’s counsel shall compensate Plaintiff in the amount of $4,000.00 for fees 17 previously awarded pursuant to the EAJA. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: April 28, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28