Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 26

ORDER Granting Motion for Attorneys' Fees Under 42 USC 406(b) 23 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 7/28/2011. (Herman, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

ADELA M. RODRIGUEZ,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01800-SMS
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS’ FEES UNDER
42 U.S.C. § 406(b)

v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,

13
Defendant.
14

(Doc. 23)
/

15
16
Plaintiff moves the Court to grant attorneys’ fees of $11,381.00, under 42 U.S.C. §
17
406(b). Defendant Commissioner has filed a brief taking no position on Plaintiff’s request.
18
Having reviewed the motion and its supporting documentation, as well as the case file, this Court
19
awards the requested attorneys’ fees.
20
I.

Legal and Factual Background

21
On September 11, 2009, Plaintiff and attorney Young Cho of the Law Offices of
22
Lawrence D. Rohlfing (“attorneys”) entered a contingent fee agreement, providing payment to
23
attorneys of twenty-five per cent of Plaintiff’s past due benefits in the event the case was won.
24
On October 10, 2009, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court appealing Defendant’s denial of
25
her application for disability insurance benefits. By a judgment entered April 8, 2011, this Court
26
reversed Defendant’s denial of benefits and remanded for payment of benefits.
27
///
28
1

1

On April 21, 2011, the agency notified Plaintiff of the award of monthly disability

2

benefits beginning in December 2006. Twenty-five per cent of Plaintiff’s past due benefit total of

3

$45,526.00 equals $11,381.50. Previously, the Court awarded and ordered paid to Plaintiff a fee

4

of $4500.00 under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). Plaintiff now requests attorneys’

5

fees of $11,381.00.

6

II.

7

Discussion
Whenever a court renders judgment favorable to a claimant under this subchapter
who was represented before the court by an attorney, the court may determine and
allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such representation, not in
excess of 25 percent of the total of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is
entitled by reason of such judgment . . . . .

8
9
10

42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1(A).

11

The Court must review contingent-fee arrangements “as an independent check, to assure

12

that they yield reasonable results in particular cases.” Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807

13

(2002). Section 406(b) “instructs courts to review for reasonableness” fees yielded under

14

contingent fee agreements, taking into account both the character of the representation and the

15

results achieved. Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808. Congress has provided a single guideline:

16

Contingency agreements are unenforceable to the extent that they provide for fees in excess of

17

twenty-five per cent of past-due benefits. Id. at 807. Within the twenty-five percent corridor, the

18

attorney for a successful claimant must demonstrate that the fee is reasonable for the services that

19

he or she provided. Id.

20

“[D]istrict courts generally have been deferential to the terms of contingency fee contracts

21

in § 406(b) cases.” Hearn v. Barnhart, 262 F.Supp.2d 1033, 1037 (N.D.Cal. 2003). Attorneys

22

who agree to represent claimants pursuant to a contingent fee agreement assume the risk of

23

receiving no compensation for their time and effort if the action does not succeed. Id. Here,

24

Cerney accepted substantial risk of loss in representing Plaintiff, whose application had already

25

been denied at the administrative level. Plaintiff agreed to the contingent fee. Working

26

efficiently and effectively, the attorneys secured a remand, and ultimately, the award of

27

substantial benefits to Plaintiff.

28

///
2

1

III.

Conclusion and Order

2

Accordingly, this Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s petition for attorneys’ fees of

3

$11,381.00, net of the previously awarded fee of $4500.00 under the Equal Access to Justice Act

4

(EAJA), for a total amount of $6881.00.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated:
icido3

July 28, 2011

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
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
3