(SS) Jacobson v. Commissioner of Social Security
Order requiring Plaintiff to file supplemental brief regarding Motion for Attorney fees,signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/14/2020. (Filing Deadline: 10/20/2020) (Rosales, O.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:18-cv-01439-SAB
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF REGARDING
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
FIVE DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff David Jacobson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action seeking judicial review of a final
18 decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner” or “Defendant”) denying his
19 application for disability benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act. The action was voluntarily
20 remanded for further proceedings at the stipulation of the parties. On remand, Plaintiff was
21 found to be disabled and awarded past due benefits.
On September 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for an award of attorney fees pursuant to
23 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). In the motion, counsel states that she is seeking a net award of attorney fees
24 in the amount of $32,986.76. (ECF No. 20 at 1.) Plaintiff also states that past due benefits in the
25 amount of $37,412.90 were withheld for the payment of attorney fees and she is reducing this
26 amount by $14,062.17 for approval of a gross fee in the sum of $23,350.73. (Id.) Upon receipt
27 of this sum, counsel will refund Plaintiff the $4,426.14 in EAJA fees that were previously paid in
28 this matter. (Id.) Using this gross figure, the net fees requested would be a net award of
1 $18,924.59, not the $32,986.76 stated in the motion. In her declaration, Counsel states that she is
2 requesting the reduced fee of $23,350.73. (ECF No. 20-1 at 2.)
While it appears that the request for $32,986.76 is a typographical error, the Court shall
4 require counsel to clarify the gross amount of attorney fees that are being sought by the motion
5 for attorney fees filed on September 30, 2020.
Additionally, the fee agreement included in the motion for attorney fees only covers the
7 administrative level and explicitly states that it does not apply to representation at the United
8 States District Court. In determining whether the fees requested are reasonable, the district court
9 must respect “the primacy of lawful attorney-client fee agreements,” and is to look first at the
10 contingent-fee agreement, and then test it for reasonableness.” Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d
11 1142, 1148 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff shall submit the fee agreement that covers representation at
12 the district court level or provide legal authority that the fee agreement that has been provided
13 covers the representation for the purposes of a 406(b) fee request.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within five (5) days of the date of entry of
15 this order, Plaintiff shall file supplemental briefing clarifying the amount of attorney fees that are
16 sought by the motion filed on September 30, 2020 and addressing the fee agreement that covers
17 representation in district court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 14, 2020
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?