Keel v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 32

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 25 Motion for Attorney Fees signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 03/26/2021. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHARLES KEEL,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR ATTORNEY FEES

v.
ECF No. 25
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

16
17

Case No. 1:17-cv-01522-JDP (SS)

Plaintiff moves for the award of attorney fees in the amount of $19,468.50 to plaintiff’s

18
attorney Young Yim under 42 U.S.C. 406(b). ECF No. 25. Plaintiff and his attorney entered into
19
a written contingent fee agreement that provided for a fee in the amount of 25 percent of past-due
20
21

benefits. ECF No. 27-1 at 2. Plaintiff’s attorney is requesting 25 percent of total past-due
benefits, which amounts to $19,468.50.1

22
An attorney may seek an award of fees for representation of a Social Security claimant
23
who is awarded benefits upon a favorable judgment for claimant. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). A
24
contingency fee agreement is unenforceable if it provides for fees exceeding 25 percent of past25
due benefits. Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002). The court must review
26
27
28

The court previously awarded plaintiff’s attorney a fee of $7,499.52 under the Equal
Access to Justice Act, which will be remitted to plaintiff. ECF No. 23.
1

1

contingent-fee arrangements “as an independent check, to assure that they yield reasonable results

2

in particular cases.” Id. at 807. In doing so, the court should consider “the character of the

3

representation and the results the representative achieved.” Id. at 808. In addition, the court

4

should consider whether the attorney performed in a substandard manner or engaged in dilatory

5

conduct or excessive delays, and whether the fees are “excessively large in relation to the benefits

6

received.” Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

7

In this case, after carefully considering the fee agreement and the applicable law, I find

8

that the requested fees are reasonable. In support of the motion, plaintiff’s counsel has attached a

9

written fee agreement that provided for a contingent fee of twenty-five percent of any awarded

10

retroactive benefits. ECF No. 27-1. Plaintiff’s counsel accepted the risk of loss in the

11

representation. Plaintiff’s counsel additionally expended a total of 40.3 hours of attorney time

12

while representing plaintiff before the District Court. ECF No. 27-1 at 5. The requested fee

13

amount is twenty-five percent of past-due benefits. As a result of counsel’s work, the matter was

14

remanded for further proceedings before an Administrative Law Judge, who issued a fully

15

favorable decision and awarded plaintiff benefits. There is no indication that counsel performed

16

in a substandard manner or engaged in severe dilatory conduct to the extent that a reduction in

17

fees is warranted. To the contrary, plaintiff was able to secure a fully favorable decision and

18

remand for further proceedings, including an award of past-due benefits.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees, ECF No. 25, is granted. The fee in the

19
20

sum of $19,468.50 is approved to be paid by defendant to counsel for plaintiff.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
Dated:
24
25

March 26, 2021
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2