(SS) Taylor v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEE D. TAYLOR Case No. 1:19-cv-00815-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO CORRECT 13 v. (Doc. No. 20) 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 15 ORDER FOR CLERK TO MAIL A COPY OF Defendant. THIS ORDER TO PLAINTIFF 16 17 18 19 Presently before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Correct Order Pursuant to 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (Doc. No. 20). On April 13, 2022, the Court granted 21 Plaintiff’s counsel Steven G. Rosales of the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing’s (“Counsel”) 22 motion for attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). (Doc. No. 19). On May 16, 2022, 23 Counsel and the Acting Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) filed a joint motion 24 to correct the Court’s April 13, 2022 order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). 25 (Doc. No. 20). For the reasons set forth below, the joint motion to correct the Court’s April 13, 26 2022 order is granted. 27 I. BACKGROUND 28 On June 10, 2019, Plaintiff brought the underlying action seeking judicial review of a 1 final administrative decision denying Plaintiff’s claim for disability insurance benefits under the 2 Social Security Act. (Doc. No. 1). On January 21, 2020, the Court granted the parties’ 3 stipulation to a voluntary remand pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. Nos. 11, 4 12). The Court entered an award of $1,000.00 for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice 5 Act (“EAJA”) on April 17, 2020. (Doc. Nos. 14, 15). On April 6, 2021, the Commissioner 6 issued a favorable decision. (Doc. No. 16-2). Plaintiff was awarded $46,196.00 in retroactive 7 benefits. (Doc. No. 16-3 at 3). 8 On March 17, 2022, Counsel filed a motion for attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 9 406(b) in the amount of $6,500.00, with a credit of $1,000.00 to Plaintiff for EAJA fees 10 previously paid. (Doc. No. 16 at 1). On April 13, 2022, the Court granted Counsel’s motion for 11 attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b); however, the Court specifically certified only a net 12 fee of $5,500.00 be awarded to Counsel to account for the previously awarded $1,000.00 in fees 13 pursuant to the EAJA. (Doc. No. 19 at 3-4). On May 16, 2022, Counsel and the Commissioner 14 filed a joint motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) requesting that the Court 15 correct its April 13, 2022 order. (Doc. No. 20). Specifically, the parties request the Court to 16 remove the instruction that Commissioner certify a net fee of $5,500 to Counsel. (Doc. No. 20 at 17 2); see Doc. No. 19 at 4). Instead of certifying a net fee, the parties request that the Court 18 “require the Commissioner to certify a section 406(b) fee of $6,500.00 to Counsel, and for 19 Counsel to refund the $1,000.00 EAJA fee to Plaintiff.” 20 II. APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final judgment, 22 orders, or proceedings of the district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party 23 from a final judgment, order, or proceedings on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, 24 or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence . . .; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the 25 judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief 26 from the operation of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion under Rule 60(b) must be 27 made within a reasonable time, in any event “not more than one year after the judgment, order, or 28 proceeding was entered or taken.” Id. 1 When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to show the 2 “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown 3 upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Motions to reconsider are 4 committed to the discretion of the trial court. See Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 5 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, 6 a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its 7 prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 8 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). 9 Here, the parties request, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and (6), 10 that the Court “modify” the April 13, 2022 order granting § 406(b) attorney fees to remove 11 reference to a “net fee” because it would comport with both Counsel’s request in his motion, and 12 the Commissioner’s response indicating that “should the Court find that Counsel’s request is 13 reasonable, it would award Counsel 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) fees and order Counsel to refund to 14 Plaintiff the $1,000.00 in EAJA feels that Counsel previously accepted for work before this 15 Court.” (Doc. No. 18 at 4). The parties’ request is further supported by recent rulings in the 16 Eastern District of California that while the “netting method” is permissible, it is “disfavored in 17 light of the EAJA’s language anticipating an attorney-to-claimant refund.” See, e.g., Londono v. 18 Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2022 WL 891285, at *3 (E.D. Cal. March 25, 2022). Based on the 19 foregoing, the Court finds that modification of the April 13, 2022 Order is appropriate. 20 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 21 1. The parties’ Joint Motion to Correct Order Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22 60(b) (Doc. No. 20) is GRANTED. 23 2. The conclusion of Court’s April 13, 2022 order is revised as follows: Counsel is 24 awarded $6,500 in attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Counsel shall refund to Plaintiff 25 $1,000 of the § 406(b) fees awarded as an offset for the EAJA fees previously awarded pursuant 26 to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). 27 3. This order does not modify the Court’s order in any other way, including the Court’s 28 finding that the request of $6,500.00 in attorney fees pursuant to § 406(b) was reasonable. 1 4. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to serve a copy of this order on Lee D. 2 | Taylor, 618 Woodrow Street, Taft, CA 93268. 3 “| Dated: _ May 24, 2022 law □□□ fareh Hack 5 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA ‘ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28