Card v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 48

ORDER by Judge Thomas S. Hixson granting 46 Motion for Attorney Fees. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2019)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

JOESHANA TAMIKA CARD,
Plaintiff,

7
8
9
10

Case No. 15-cv-05201-TSH
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY’S FEES

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 46

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

I.

INTRODUCTION

After Plaintiff Joeshana Tamika Card brought this action for review of the Commissioner

14

of Social Security’s decision to deny benefits, the Court remanded the case and the Commissioner

15

issued a favorable decision. Card’s attorney, Steven G. Rosales of the Law Offices of Lawrence

16

D. Rohlfing, now seeks $8,300 in attorney’s fees under section 206(b) of the Social Security Act,

17

42 U.S.C. § 406(b). ECF No. 46. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion.

18
19

II.

BACKGROUND

Card filed this case on November 13, 2015, seeking review of the Commissioner’s

20

decision pursuant to the Social Security Act (“SSA”), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). ECF No. 1. On June

21

11, 2018, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation for remand to the Social Security

22

Administration for further proceedings. ECF No. 39. On remand, the Commissioner granted

23

Card’s application for benefits, entitling her to receive $57,722.52 in retroactive benefits and

24

withholding 25% ($14,430.63) “in case we need to pay your lawyer.” Rosales Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. 2,

25

ECF No. 46-2 (Notice of Award, providing Card is entitled to monthly disability benefits

26

beginning November 2010 and showing the monthly benefit amount, with periodic adjustments

27

for cost of living).

28

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, on October 3, 2018, the Court ordered payment of

1

attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), in the

2

amount of $3,348.92. ECF No. 45. As part of the stipulation, Rosales reserved the right to seek

3

additional attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). ECF No. 44. Card and Rosales had a

4

representation agreement that provides for 25% of the benefits due up to the date of the decision

5

awarding her benefits. Rosales Decl., Ex. 1, ECF No. 46-1.

6

Rosales filed the present motion on July 12, 2019. The Commissioner filed a statement in

7

which he “takes no position on the reasonableness of the request.” ECF No. 47. The Court has

8

not received any response or objection from Card.

9
10

III.

LEGAL STANDARD

Attorneys handling social security proceedings may seek fees for their work under both the

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

EAJA and the SSA. While the government pays an award pursuant to the EAJA, an award

12

pursuant to § 406 of the SSA is paid out of a successful claimant’s past-due benefits. Russell v.

13

Sullivan, 930 F.2d 1443, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991), abrogated on other grounds by Sorensen v. Mink,

14

239 F.3d 1140, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001). In passing § 406, Congress sought to protect attorneys from

15

the nonpayment of fees, while also shielding clients from unfairly large fees. Gisbrecht v.

16

Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 805 (2002).

17

Section 406(b) provides that whenever a court renders judgment in favor of a claimant, the

18

court may award the claimant’s counsel a reasonable attorney’s fee, not to exceed 25% of the past-

19

due benefits awarded to the claimant. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). The court must review counsel’s

20

request for fees “as an independent check” to ensure that the contingency fee agreement will

21

“yield reasonable results in particular cases.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807. In determining a

22

reasonable fee award, the district court “must respect ‘the primacy of lawful attorney-client fee

23

agreements,’” by “‘looking first to the contingent-fee agreement, then testing it for

24

reasonableness.’” Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.2d 1142, 1148 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gisbrecht,

25

535 U.S. 789 at 793, 808). A fee based on a contingent-fee agreement is unreasonable and subject

26

to reduction “if the attorney provided substandard representation or engaged in dilatory conduct in

27

order to increase the accrued amount of past-due benefits, or if the ‘benefits are large in

28

comparison to the amount of time counsel spent on the case.’” Id. (quoting Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at
2

1

808). “The attorney bears the burden of establishing that the fee sought is reasonable.” Id.

2

Additionally, a § 406(b) fee award is offset by any award of EAJA fees. Thus, if the court awards

3

fees under both the EAJA and § 406(b), “the claimant’s attorney must refun[d] to the claimant the

4

amount of the smaller fee.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 796 (citation omitted).

5
6

IV.

DISCUSSION

The Court finds Rosales has met his burden to demonstrate that the requested fees are

7

reasonable. Card and Rosales entered into a contingent fee agreement providing for a 25% fee,

8

which is consistent with the statutory cap. There is no evidence that Rosales’s performance was

9

substandard. To the contrary, his representation resulted in Card receiving substantial past-due
benefits. After the parties entered into a stipulation to remand this matter to the Commissioner for

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

further proceedings, Rosales secured a decision in Card’s favor in the amount of $57,722.52.

12

Further, the fees Rosales requests are not excessively large in relation to the benefits achieved.

13

Although Rosales is entitled to $14,430.63 under the representation agreement (25% of the back

14

pay award), he seeks only $8,300 for 20.6 hours of work. Mot. at 3. The fees he seeks would

15

result in an effective hourly rate of approximately $403 per hour. The Court finds this rate

16

reasonable considering the results Rosales achieved, the amount of time he spent on the case, and

17

his assumption of risk in agreeing to represent Card on a contingency basis. See Crawford, 586

18

F.3d at 1153 (affirming the reasonableness of the fees where the effective hourly rates were $519,

19

$875 and $902).

20

V.

CONCLUSION

21

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Rosales’s motion for attorney’s fees.

22

The Commissioner is directed to certify fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) in the amount of $8,300,

23

payable to the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing. Card’s counsel is ordered to refund the

24

$3,348.92 EAJA fee award to her.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 5, 2019

27
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge

28
3