Butler v. Colvin
Filing
34
ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler granting 32 Motion for Attorney Fees. The court grants the plaintiff's amended motion for attorney's fees. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
San Francisco Division
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
CHRISTIAN P. BUTLER,
Case No. 3:14-cv-02050-LB
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
14
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
15
Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING THE PLAINTIFF’S
COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY’S FEES
Re: ECF No. 26
16
17
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
18
In this Social Security appeal, the parties stipulated to remand the case to the Commissioner for
19
20
further administrative action.1 On remand, the plaintiff was awarded past-due benefits in the amount of
$131,510.00.2 The Commissioner withheld 25% of the retroactive benefits, or $32,877.50.3
21
22
The plaintiff’s counsel now seeks $22,877.50 of those benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) and the
parties’ attorney-client fee agreement, which provides for a 25% § 406(b) contingency fee.4 Counsel
23
24
25
See Order – ECF No. 20. Record citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”);
pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.
1
27
28
2
ECF No. 26-4 at 5.
3
26
Id.
Motion for Attorney’s Fees – ECF No. 26; Amended Motion for Attorney’s Fees – ECF No. 32; Fee
Agreement – ECF No. 26-7.
4
ORDER — No. 14-cv-02050-LB
1
already received $4,789.51 in fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), which results in a
2
net fee of $18,087.99.5 Counsel also informs the court that the National Security Disability Advocates,
3
“the legal entity that represented Mr. Butler in the proceedings before the Administration[,] intends to
4
separately move the Administration for the $10,000 that would remain from Mr. Butler’s past-due
5
benefits.”6 The Commissioner submitted an analysis of counsel’s request.7
6
7
The court can decide this matter without oral argument. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). The court grants the
motion because the amount of fees requested is reasonable.
8
ANALYSIS
9
Under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), “[w]henever a court renders a judgment favorable to a [social security]
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
claimant . . . , the court may determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee” for the
12
claimant’s counsel, which can be no more than 25% of the total of past-due benefits awarded to the
13
claimant. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). A court may award such a fee even if the court’s judgment did not
14
immediately result in an award of past-due benefits; where the court has rendered a judgment
15
favorable to a claimant by reversing an earlier determination by an ALJ and remanding for further
16
consideration, the court may calculate the 25% fee based upon any past-due benefits awarded on
17
remand. See, e.g., Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).
18
In considering a motion for attorney’s fees under section 406(b), the court must review counsel’s
19
request “as an independent check” to ensure that the contingency fee agreement “yield[s] reasonable
20
results.” See Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002). Section 406(b) “does not displace
21
contingent-fee agreements within the statutory ceiling; instead, § 406(b) instructs courts to review for
22
reasonableness fees yielded by those agreements.” Id. at 808–09. To evaluate the reasonableness of a
23
fee request under section 406(b), the court should consider the character of the representation and the
24
results achieved. Id. at 808; see also Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151. This includes analyzing whether
25
26
5
Ortega Decl. – ECF No. 26-3 ¶ 7.
27
6
Motion for Attorney’s Fees at 1; Amended Motion for Attorney’s Fees at 1–2.
28
7
Statement of Defendant’s Non-Party Analysis – ECF No. 29.
ORDER — No. 14-cv-02050-LB
2
1
substandard representation justifies awarding less than 25% in fees; any delay in the proceedings
2
attributable to the attorney requesting the fee; whether the benefits of the representation are out of
3
proportion to time spent on the case; and the risk counsel assumed by accepting the case. See
4
Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151–52 (citing Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808).
5
The court must offset an award of section 406(b) attorney’s fees by any award of fees granted
6
under the EAJA. Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 796; Parrish v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 698 F.3d 1215, 1218 (9th
7
Cir. 2012).
8
The court finds that the fee request is reasonable. The 25% contingency fee agreement is within
9
section 406(b)(1)(A)’s statutory ceiling. The work was reasonable given the favorable outcome and the
10
time spent is not out of proportion to the fee award.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
CONCLUSION
13
The court finds that fees of $22,877.50 are reasonable under § 406(b), reduces the award by the
14
$4,789.51 in EAJA fees, and authorizes a net fee award of $18,087.99.
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
Dated: February 2, 2017
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER — No. 14-cv-02050-LB
3
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?