(SS) Keel 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 CHARLES KEEL, Case No. 1:17-cv-01522-JDP (SS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES 13 v. ECF No. 25 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff moves for the award of attorney fees in the amount of $19,468.50 to plaintiff’s 18 attorney Young Yim under 42 U.S.C. 406(b). ECF No. 25. Plaintiff and his attorney entered into 19 a written contingent fee agreement that provided for a fee in the amount of 25 percent of past-due 20 benefits. ECF No. 27-1 at 2. Plaintiff’s attorney is requesting 25 percent of total past-due 21 benefits, which amounts to $19,468.50.1 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 $7,499.52 under the Equal 28 Access to Justice Act, which will be remitted to plaintiff. ECF No. 23. 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 the requested fees are reasonable. In support of the motion, plaintiffs counsel has attached a 9 | written fee agreement that provided for a contingent fee of twenty-five percent of any awarded 10 | retroactive benefits. ECF No. 27-1. Plaintiff's counsel accepted the risk of loss in the 11 | representation. Plaintiff's counsel additionally expended a total of 40.3 hours of attorney time 12 | while representing plaintiff before the District Court. ECF No. 27-1 at 5. The requested fee 13 || amount is twenty-five percent of past-due benefits. As a result of counsel’s work, the matter was 14 | remanded for further proceedings before an Administrative Law Judge, who issued a fully 15 | favorable decision and awarded plaintiff benefits. There is no indication that counsel performed 16 | ina substandard manner or engaged in severe dilatory conduct to the extent that a reduction in 17 | fees is warranted. To the contrary, plaintiff was able to secure a fully favorable decision and 18 | remand for further proceedings, including an award of past-due benefits. 19 Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for attorney fees, ECF No. 25, is granted. The fee in the 20 | sum of $19,468.50 is approved to be paid by defendant to counsel for plaintiff. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 ( 1 Oy — Dated: _ March 26, 2021 □□ 24 JEREMY D,. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28