(SS) Zafferano v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LINDA ANN ZAFFERANO, Case No. 1:17-cv-01165-JDP (SS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES 13 v. ECF No. 21 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff moves for the award of attorney fees in the amount of $12,400 to plaintiff’s 18 attorney Shellie Lott under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). ECF No. 21. Plaintiff and her attorney entered 19 into a written contingent fee agreement that provided for a fee in the amount of 25 percent of 20 past-due benefits. ECF No. 21-3 at 1. Plaintiff’s total past-due benefits are $60,500. Plaintiff is 21 requesting approval of a fee in the sum of $12,400, which is less than 25 percent.1 22 An attorney may seek an award of fees for representation of a Social Security claimant 23 who is awarded benefits upon a favorable judgment for claimant. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). A 24 contingency fee agreement is unenforceable if it provides for fees exceeding 25 percent of past- 25 due benefits. Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002). The court must review 26 27 1 The court previously awarded plaintiff’s attorney a fee of $3,113.73 under the Equal 28 Access to Justice Act. ECF No. 20. 1 | contingent-fee arrangements “as an independent check, to assure that they yield reasonable results 2 | particular cases.” Jd. at 807. In doing so, the court should consider “the character of the 3 || representation and the results the representative achieved.” Jd. at 808. In addition, the court 4 | should consider whether the attorney performed in a substandard manner or engaged in dilatory 5 || conduct or excessive delays, and whether the fees are “excessively large in relation to the benefits 6 || received.” Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). 7 In this case, after carefully considering the fee agreement and the applicable law, I find 8 | that plaintiffs counsel’s requested fees are reasonable. In support of the motion, plaintiff's 9 | counsel attached a written fee agreement which provided for a contingent fee of twenty-five 10 || percent of any awarded retroactive benefits. ECF No. 21-3. Plaintiff's counsel accepted the risk 11 | of loss in the representation. Plaintiff's counsel additionally expended a total of eleven hours of 12 || attorney time while representing plaintiff before the District Court. ECF No. 21-4 at 3. The 13 | requested fee amount is less than twenty-five percent of past-due benefits. As a result of 14 | counsel’s work, the matter was remanded for further proceedings before an Administrative Law 15 | Judge, who issued a fully favorable decision and awarded plaintiff benefits. Additionally, there is 16 | no indication counsel performed in a substandard manner or engaged in severe dilatory conduct to 17 | the extent that a reduction in fees is warranted. To the contrary, plaintiff was able to secure a 18 | fully favorable decision and remand for further proceedings, including an award of past-due 19 | benefits. 20 Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for attorney fees, ECF No. 21, is granted. The fee in the 21 | sum of $12,400 is approved. 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 ( q Sty — Dated: _ March 26, 2021 □□ 25 JEREMY D,. PETERSON 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28