Ysidro Moreno Jr v. Carolyn W Colvin

Filing 28

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams: On June 26, 2018, plaintiff's counsel ("Counsel") filed a Motion for Attorney Fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) ("Motion" or "Mot."). (ECF No. 26) . On July 3, 2018, defendant filed a Response to the Motion, taking no position on the reasonableness of the request. (ECF No. 27). No later than July 18, 2018, Counsel is ordered to show cause why the fee requested by Counsel is reasonable under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) and Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 796, 122 S. Ct. 1817, 1252 L. Ed. 2d 996 (2002) and its progeny, and/or that it does not constitute a windfall under Crawford v. v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1148 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) and its progeny. (See document for further details.) 27 , 26 . (sbou)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL
Case No.: CV 13-8492-PLA
Title:

Date: July 11, 2018

Ysidro Moreno Jr. v. Nancy Berryhill

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE

PAUL L. ABRAMS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
N/A
Court Reporter / Recorder

Christianna Howard
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT(S):

NONE
PROCEEDINGS:

N/A
Tape No.

NONE
(IN CHAMBERS)

On June 26, 2018, plaintiff’s counsel (“Counsel”) filed a Motion for Attorney Fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
406(b) (“Motion” or “Mot.”). (ECF No. 26). On July 3, 2018, defendant filed a Response to the Motion, taking
no position on the reasonableness of the request. (ECF No. 27).
Counsel seeks $33,463.50 for representing plaintiff and his child, with a credit to plaintiff for the fees under the
Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), previously paid in the amount of $1,800, for a net fee of
$31,663.50. (Mot. at 1). Counsel’s itemized billing reflects that a total of 18.85 hours of attorney and paralegal
time was spent representing plaintiff before this Court. (Mot. at 8 & Ex. 15). This includes 6.35 hours of
attorney time and 12.5 hours of paralegal time (8 of which were spent in preparing the Motion). Counsel argues
that the amount requested, based on the combined total hours, represents a “hypothetical hourly rate of $1,775,”
and is “reasonable” and does not constitute a “windfall” under relevant case authority.1 (Mot. at 6-8).
However, when the 12.5 paralegal hours are considered separately, and calculated at Counsel’s firm hourly rate
for each of the three paralegals who worked on this matter (which amounts to a total of approximately $2,090.50
(see Mot. Ex. 15)), the rate for Counsel’s 6.5 hours amounts to approximately $4,826.62 per hour (($33,463.50 $2,090.50) / 6.5).

1

The Court may not adopt these calculations, as they do not appear to fully correspond to the hours
and rates presented in the billing statement.
CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

Based on the foregoing, no later than July 18, 2018, Counsel is ordered to show cause why the fee requested
by Counsel is reasonable under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) and Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 796, 122 S. Ct.
1817, 1252 L. Ed. 2d 996 (2002) and its progeny, and/or that it does not constitute a windfall under Crawford
v. v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1148 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) and its progeny.

cc:

Ysidro Moreno Jr.
Bill LaTour, Esq.
Jeffrey T. Chen, SAUSA

Initials of Deputy Clerk

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

ch

Page 2 of 2