Ramirez v. Colvin

Filing 31

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 27 Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees.(emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/29/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

Plaintiff,

8
9

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

v.

10

Docket No. 27

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

11

Defendant.

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Case No. 13-cv-01688-EMC

ANDRES RAMIREZ,

I.

13
14

INTRODUCTION

On January 6, 2014, this Court granted the stipulation of the parties seeking a sentence four

15

remand of this Social Security action and entry of judgment. Docket No. 22. The parties then

16

entered into a stipulation for the award of $5,292.66 in attorney‟s fees and expenses under the

17

Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and the Court granted their stipulation on

18

this issue. Docket No. 26.

19

The Social Security Administration found that Plaintiff Andres Ramirez became disabled

20

on January 30, 2009, and was entitled to benefits, including past-due benefits of $51,259.00.

21

Docket No. 27-2 at 3. The Administration withheld $12,814.75 (25% of the past-due benefits) for

22

payment of attorney‟s fees. Id. On January 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for $12,814.75 in

23

attorney‟s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), or $7,522.09 after crediting back to the client the

24

$5,292.66 awarded under the EAJA. Docket No. 27 (Mot.). The government filed its non-

25

opposition response to the request for fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), stating the standard for the

26

award of attorney‟s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Docket No. 28 (Resp.). Plaintiff‟s counsel did

27

not file a reply, and the Court subsequently issued an order requesting supplemental briefing

28

addressing the Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002) factors for reasonableness, and to

1
2
3
4
5

attach the operative fee agreement and time records. Docket No. 29.
Having considered the papers and the supplemental briefing, the Court GRANTS
Plaintiff‟s motion for attorney‟s fees under section 406(b).
II.

DISCUSSION

The award of attorney‟s fees in social security cases is governed by 42 U.S.C. § 406. 42

6

U.S.C. § 406(b) governs fees for the representation of a claimant before the court. This section

7

imposes a 25% cap on the amount that can be awarded to an attorney. In assessing the

8

reasonableness of a fee request, the district court should not start with the lodestar calculation, but

9

with the contingent-fee agreement, and consider “„the character of the representation and the

banc) (quoting Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808). The lower court may apply a downward adjustment in

12
For the Northern District of California

results the representative achieved.‟” Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1151 (9th Cir. 2009) (en

11

United States District Court

10

the event of “substandard performance, delay, or benefits that are not in proportion to the time

13

spent on the case.” Id. (citing Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808).

14

In the instant case, Plaintiff entered into a contingency fee agreement entitling Plaintiff‟s

15

counsel to 25% of the past-due benefits resulting from the claim. Docket No. 30-2. This 25%

16

contingency fee agreement is within section 406(b)‟s statutory ceiling. The Court finds that the

17

25% amount ($12,814.75) is reasonable given the character of the representation and the results

18

achieved. There is no evidence of substandard performance, as Plaintiff‟s counsel successfully

19

obtained a remand of the case. There is also no evidence of undue delay in litigating the case.

20

Finally, there is no evidence that the benefits are not in proportion to the time spent on the case.

21

Plaintiffs‟ counsel spent 32.3 hours on the case, resulting in an effective hourly rate of $396.74

22

($12,814.75/32.3 hours). This amount is significantly lower than hourly rates that have been

23

approved by the Ninth Circuit, and will not result in a windfall to Plaintiff‟s counsel. Compare

24

with Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1145-46, 1152 (awarding $21,000 for 19.5 hours of attorney work and

25

4.5 hours of paralegal work, $11,500 for 17.45 hours of attorney work and 4.7 hours of paralegal

26

work, and $24,000 for 26.9 hours of attorney work and 2.6 hours of paralegal work). Further,

27

such a rate takes into consideration the inherent risk of a contingent fee case. See id. at 1150

28

(explaining that lodestar fees undercompensate attorneys for the risk in representing clients under
2

1

a contingent fee agreement).
III.

2

CONCLUSION

3

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that counsel‟s request for $12,814.75 is

4

reasonable. Because counsel was previously awarded $5,292.66 in attorney‟s fees under the

5

EAJA, the Court awards $7,522.09 in attorney‟s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b).

6

This order disposes of Docket No. 27.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

Dated: February 29, 2016
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3