White v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 23

ORDER GRANTING 20 Motion for Attorney Fees signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/28/2020. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EARL FITZGERALD WHITE
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14
15

ANDREW M. SAUL,1 Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:17-cv-00629-BAM
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS’ FEES PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C.
§ 406(b)
(Doc. No. 20)

Pending before the Court is counsel for Plaintiff Earl Fitzgerald White’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for

18

attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). (Doc. No. 20). The Commissioner of Social Security

19

(the “Commissioner”) has filed a response to the motion analyzing the fee request but taking no

20

position as to its reasonableness. (Doc. No. 22). Having reviewed the motion and its supporting

21

documentation, as well as the case file, the Court GRANTS the motion and awards attorneys’ fees in

22

the amount of $20,000.00.

23

I.

Relevant Background

24

The Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing entered into a written contingent fee agreement with

25

Plaintiff dated April 4, 2017, which provided that “[i]n consideration of the services to be performed by

26
27
1

28

Andrew M. Saul is now the Commissioner of Social Security. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, Andrew M. Saul is substituted for Acting Commissioner Nancy A. Berryhill as the defendant in this suit.

1

1

the Attorney and it being the desire of the Claimant to compensate Attorney out of the proceeds . . . the

2

fee for successful prosecution of this matter is . . . 25% of the past due benefits awarded upon reversal

3

of any unfavorable ALJ decision for work before the Social Security Administration” and “a separate

4

25% of the past due benefits awarded upon reversal of any unfavorable ALJ decision for work before

5

the court.” (Doc. No. 20-1).
On May 4, 2017, Plaintiff filed this action seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s denial

6
7

of benefits. (Doc. No. 1). On February 8, 2018, the parties’ stipulated to a voluntary remand of the

8

case for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. No.

9

15.) The Court approved the parties’ stipulation on February 9, 2018. (Doc. No. 16.) On March 23,

10

2018, the Court approved the parties’ stipulation to award Plaintiff $4,000.00 in attorneys’ fees

11

pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (Doc. No. 19.) On remand, the

12

Commissioner granted Plaintiff’s application for benefits and, on January 11, 2020, issued a notice

13

indicating that Plaintiff was entitled to receive $113,597.602 in retroactive benefits. (Doc. No. 20-3.)
In the present Motion, Plaintiff’s counsel asks the Court to award attorneys’ fees in the amount

14
15

of $20,000.00. (Doc. No. 20.) Plaintiff’s counsel contends this fee is reasonable in light of the services

16

rendered and results achieved, as counsel prepared and participated in obtaining a favorable result and

17

the manner and approach to the case saved time and reduced the accumulation of past-due benefits.

18

(Doc. No. 20 at 4). Additionally, the fee counsel seeks is less than twenty percent of the past-due

19

benefits payable to Plaintiff. (Id.) The Commissioner filed a statement in response to the Motion

20

providing an analysis of the fee request but taking no position regarding its reasonableness. (Doc. No.

21

22.)

22

II.

An attorney may seek an award of fees for representation of a Social Security claimant who is

23
24

Legal Standard

awarded benefits:

25
26
2

27
28

In the motion, counsel for Plaintiff states that the past due benefits total $140,332.50. (Doc. No. 20 at 12.) However, the
Notice of Award dated January 11, 2020, does not indicate the total amount of past due benefits awarded and instead states
that Plaintiff’s first payment would be $85,531.10 and an additional $28,066.50 has been withheld from Plaintiff’s benefits
for attorneys’ fees. (Doc. No. 20-3.) Accordingly, it appears the total amount of past due benefits awarded to Plaintiff is
$113,597.60 and not $140,332.50.

2

Whenever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant . . . 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. . ..

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A); see also Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 794 (2002) (Section 406(b)
controls fees awarded for representation of Social Security claimants). A contingency fee agreement
is unenforceable if it provides for fees exceeding twenty-five percent of past-due benefits. Gisbrecht,
supra, 535 U.S. at 807.
III.

Discussion and Analysis
District courts “have been deferential to the terms of contingency fee contracts § 406(b) cases.”

Hern v. Barnhart, 262 F.Supp.2d 1033, 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2003). However, the Court must review
contingent-fee arrangements “as an independent check, to assure that they yield reasonable results in
particular cases.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807. In doing so, the Court should consider “the character of
the representation and the results the representative achieved.” Id. at 808. In addition, the Court
should consider whether the attorney performed in a substandard manner or engaged in dilatory
conduct or excessive delays, and whether the fees are “excessively large in relation to the benefits
received.” Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).
In this case, after carefully considering the fee agreement and the applicable law, the Court
finds Plaintiff’s counsel’s requested fees to be reasonable. In support of his motion for attorneys’ fees
under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), Plaintiff’s counsel attached the contingent fee agreement which provided
for a contingent fee of twenty-five percent of any awarded retroactive benefits. (Doc. No. 20-1.)
Plaintiff’s counsel accordingly accepted the risk of loss in the representation. Plaintiff’s counsel
additionally expended a total of 20 hours of attorney time and 3.9 hours of paralegal time while
representing Plaintiff before the District Court. (Doc. No. 20-4.) The requested fee amount represents
approximately 17.6% of past-due benefits and is below the twenty-five percent maximum. As a result
of counsel’s work, the matter was remanded for further proceedings before an Administrative Law
Judge, who issued a fully favorable decision and awarded Plaintiff benefits.
Plaintiff’s counsel provided a copy of the notice of award and the motion for attorney’s fees to
Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 20). Although served with the motion, Plaintiff did not challenge the requested
3

1

fees which attests to their reasonableness. Likewise, the Commissioner, in its advisory capacity, also

2

declined to dispute the propriety of the amount of the fees requested by Plaintiff’s counsel. (Doc. No.

3

22.)
Additionally, there is no indication counsel performed in a substandard manner or engaged in

4
5

severe dilatory conduct to the extent that a reduction in fees is warranted. To the contrary, Plaintiff

6

was able to secure a fully favorable decision and remand for further proceedings, including an award

7

of past-due benefits. Accordingly, the Court finds the fees sought by counsel are reasonable in light

8

the results achieved in this action, and the amount does not exceed twenty-five percent maximum

9

permitted under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b).

10

IV.

Conclusion and Order

11

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

12

1.

13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (Doc. No. 20)

is GRANTED;
2.

Plaintiff’s counsel is awarded $20,000.00 in attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

406(b); and
3.

Plaintiff’s counsel shall compensate Plaintiff in the amount of $4,000.00 for fees

previously awarded pursuant to the EAJA.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

April 28, 2020

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4