Morales v. Saul ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GLORIA M., Case No.: 20-cv-1271-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO 14 MARTIN O’MALLEY, Acting 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) AND/OR 1383(d)(2) Commissioner of Social Security,1 15 Defendant. 16 [DKT. NO. 19] 17 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 406(b) and/or 1383(d)(2). Dkt. No. 19. Plaintiff does not oppose the Motion, and 20 the Commissioner takes no position.2 Dkt. No. 21. 21 For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 22 // 23 // 24 25 1 Martin O’Malley is substituted for Andrew Saul pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 26 27 2 In his response, the Commissioner asserts he “has no direct financial stake in the outcome of this motion” and “neither supports nor opposes counsel’s request for attorney’s fees.” 28 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiff Gloria M. initiated this case in 2020, seeking review of the Commissioner 3 of Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) denial of her application for disability insurance 4 benefits. Dkt. No. 1. Several weeks after Plaintiff moved for summary judgment, the parties 5 stipulated to remand this matter for further administrative proceedings. Dkt. Nos. 13, 14. 6 The Court granted the parties’ joint motion and remanded for further proceedings pursuant 7 to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Dkt. No. 15. Pursuant to another joint motion, the 8 Court awarded Plaintiff $3,041.67 in attorney fees under the Equal Access for Justice Act 9 (“EAJA”). Dkt. No. 18. 10 On remand, the Commissioner issued a decision favorable to Plaintiff and awarded 11 $60,876 in past-due disability benefits. Dkt. No. 19 at 3, 5; Dkt. No. 19-5. The 12 Commissioner withheld $15,219 from the past-due benefits in the event Plaintiff’s counsel 13 requested payment of fees. Dkt. No. 19-5 at 2. 14 II. LEGAL STANDARD 15 Pursuant to the Social Security Act, attorneys may seek “a reasonable fee” for cases 16 in which they have successfully represented Social Security claimants. 42 U.S.C. 17 § 406(b)(1)(A). This fee cannot exceed “25 percent of the total of the past-due benefits to 18 which the claimant is entitled . . . .” Id.; see also Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807 19 (2002) (“Within the 25 percent [statutory] boundary . . ., the attorney for the successful 20 claimant must show that the fee sought is reasonable for the services rendered.”). 21 The Court “must ‘approach [§ 406(b)] fee determinations by looking first to the 22 contingent-fee agreement, then testing it for reasonableness.’” Crawford v. Astrue, 586 23 F.3d 1142, 1150 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (quoting Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808). In 24 evaluating the reasonableness of the fee award, the Court must consider “the character of 25 the representation and the results the representative achieved.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808 26 (citations omitted). The Court also “may properly reduce the fee for substandard 27 performance, delay, or benefits that are not in proportion to the time spent on the case.” 28 Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151 (citation omitted). 1 Finally, the § 406(b) fee award must be offset by any prior award of attorney’s fees 2 granted under the EAJA. See Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 796 (“Fee awards may be made under 3 both prescriptions [i.e., the EAJA and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)], but the claimant’s attorney must 4 ‘refun[d] to the claimant the amount of the smaller fee.’”) (citation omitted). 5 III. DISCUSSION 6 Plaintiff’s counsel seeks attorney fees in the amount of $8,019 for representing 7 Plaintiff in this action, offset by the $3,041.67 in EAJA fees awarded by the Court, for a 8 net award of $4,977.33. Dkt. No. 19 at 1–2. The Court has conducted an independent 9 inquiry of the proposed fee award and finds it is reasonable and does not constitute a 10 windfall. 11 Plaintiff and counsel agreed to a contingent-fee agreement where counsel receives 12 25 percent of Plaintiff’s past-due benefits. Dkt. No. 19 at 5; Dkt. No. 19-3. Counsel 13 substantially reduced the attorney fees from $15,219—the maximum allowed under the 14 contingency agreement and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)—to $8,019 (13.17 percent of the past-due 15 award). Counsel expended 14.5 hours on this case. Dkt. No. 19 at 3, Dkt. No. 19-6. The 16 $553.03 effective hourly rate is reasonable. See Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1153 (finding 17 reasonable effective hourly rates of $519, $875, and $902); ROBERTO D., Plaintiff, v. 18 MARTIN O’MALLEY, Comm’r of Soc. Sec., Defendant., No. 3:20-cv-0639-AHG, 2024 19 WL 2097901, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 9, 2024) (approving a de facto hourly rate of $943.22 20 for 12.42 hours of work). 21 Counsel “assumed significant risk” in accepting this case, “including the risk that no 22 benefits would be awarded or that there would be a long court or administrative delay in 23 resolving” the case. Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1152; see also Moreno v. Berryhill, No. 13- 24 8492-PLA, 2018 WL 3490777, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 19, 2018) (explaining the “risk of 25 nonpayment inherent in a contingency agreement”). 26 There also is no evidence of delay or substandard performance that would warrant a 27 reduction in fees. In fact, counsel’s representation resulted in Plaintiff receiving a favorable 28 decision and an award of past-due benefits. IV. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs counsel’s Motion for Fees 3 Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) and/or 1383(d)(2) in the amount of $8,019 (Dkt. No. 19). 4 The Commissioner is DIRECTED to certify payment of a fee award of $8,019, > made payable to William M. Kuntz, PLC and delivered to William Mark Kuntz, out of 6 || Plaintiff’s past-due benefits in accordance with agency policy. 7 The Court further ORDERS Plaintiff’s counsel to refund Plaintiff $3,041.67 as an 8 || offset for the EAJA fees previously awarded. ? IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: May 20, 2024 — DwulP Tr 13 Honorable Daniel E. Butcher United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28