Moody v. Colvin

Filing 25

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 22 Motion for Attorney Fees. (ahmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
YOLANDA EVETTE MOODY,

7

Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,

10

Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No.16-cv-03646-JSC
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S
COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY’S FEES
Re: Dkt. No. 22

Plaintiff’s counsel, Katherine Siegfried moves for attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

12
13

406(b) for representing Plaintiff in her successful appeal of the Commissioner of the Social

14

Security Administration’s (“Commissioner’s”) denial of social security disability benefits. (Dkt.

15

No. 22.)1 The Commissioner filed a response taking no position on Ms. Siegfried’s motion. (Dkt.

16

No. 23.) After careful consideration of the parties’ briefing, the Court concludes that oral

17

argument is unnecessary, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and GRANTS Ms. Siegfried’s motion.
BACKGROUND

18

The instant motion stems from Plaintiff’s appeal of the Commissioner’s denial of social

19
20

security disability benefits for a combination of impairments including: complex partial epilepsy,

21

lupus anticoagulant syndrome with history of pulmonary embolisms (PE) and deep vein

22

thrombosis (DVT) on clot prophylaxis with Coumadin, uterine fibroids status post hysterectomy,

23

hypertension, vertigo, migraines, asthma, and obstructive sleep apnea. (See Dkt. No. 18 at 1.) On

24

July 28, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, denied Defendant’s

25

cross motion for summary judgment, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the

26

Court’s order. (Id. at 25-26.) On August 18, 2017, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court

27
28

Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the
ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.
1

1

awarded $7,000.00 in attorneys’ fees to Plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice

2

Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920, 2412(d). (Dkt. No. 21.)
The Commissioner awarded benefits on remand and Plaintiff received a Notice of Award

3
4

in December 2018, indicating an award of both past due and ongoing benefits. (See Dkt. Nos. 22-

5

2 at ¶¶ 5-6 & 24-1 at 4 (noting “[t]he past due benefit period as per the Administrative Law Judge

6

decision dated August 1, 2018 is September 2014 through November 2018”).) Plaintiff appealed

7

that award, however, “because it did not appear correct.” (Dkt. No. 22-2 at ¶ 6; see also Dkt. No.

8

24-1 at 4 (noting that “[t]he total past due benefits for this period are $9,686.00”).) The

9

Commissioner issued a Notice of Change in Benefits on February 20, 2019 (“February Notice”),
listing monthly benefit amounts that total $36,981.90 in past-due benefits. (Dkt. No. 22-5 at 1; see

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

also Dkt. No. 23-1 at 1-2 (calculating total past-due benefits based on amounts listed in Dkt. No.

12

22-5).)
On April 15, 2019, the Commissioner issued a Notice of Award (“April Notice”) regarding

13
14

“monthly child’s benefits from Social Security beginning September 2014.” (Dkt. No. 22-6 at 1.)

15

The April Notice lists monthly benefit amounts that total $8,8160.80 in past-due benefits. (See id.;

16

see also Dkt. No. 23-1 at 1-2 (calculating total past-due benefits based on amounts listed in Dkt.

17

No. 22-6).) Further, the April Notice states that Plaintiff’s counsel “may ask the court to approve

18

a fee no larger than 25 percent of past due benefits” and “for this reason, [the Commissioner is]

19

withholding $2,200.50” of past-due child’s benefits. (Dkt. No. 22-6 at 1.)
Pursuant to Plaintiff and Ms. Siegfried’s contingent-fee agreement for this case, Ms.

20
21

Siegfried may seek fees up to 25 percent of any past-due benefits awarded to Plaintiff. (Dkt. No.

22

22-1.) Ms. Siegfried requests fees in the amount of $11,449.68, representing 25 percent of the

23

total past-due benefits ($45,798.70) reflected in the February Notice and the April Notice.2 (See

24

Dkt. No. 24 at 1 (amending the requested amount because Ms. Siegfried originally “miscalculated

25

the amount” of past-due benefits paid); see also Dkt. No. 23-1 at 2 (calculating total past-due

26
27
28

2

As discussed in the Discussion section, this amount is not offset by the $7,000 in EAJA fees
because the entire EAJA award was applied toward Plaintiff’s debts to the Internal Revenue
Service (“IRS”). (See Dkt. No. 22-3; see also Dkt. No. 22-2 at ¶ 8.)
2

1
2

benefits in the amount of $45,798.70).)
Ms. Siegfried attests that on May 7, 2019, she electronically served Plaintiff with a copy of

3

the instant motion “and all supporting papers,” and “mailed a copy to [Plaintiff’s] home address.”

4

(Dkt. No. 22-2 at ¶ 11.) Plaintiff has not filed a response or otherwise contacted the Court

5

regarding the instant motion. As previously discussed, the Commissioner filed a response

6

providing an analysis of the fee request but “tak[ing] no position on the reasonableness of the

7

request.” (Dkt. No. 23 at 4.)

8

LEGAL STANDARD

9

Under Section 406(b), “[w]henever a court renders a judgment favorable to a [social
security] claimant under this subchapter who was represented before the court by an attorney, the

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

court may determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee” to the claimant’s attorney;

12

such a fee can be no more than 25 percent of the total past-due benefits awarded to the claimant.

13

42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). A district court may award such a fee even if the court’s judgment did

14

not immediately result in an award of past-due benefits; thus, where the court reversed the

15

Administrative Law Judges determination and remanded for further consideration, the court may

16

calculate the 25 percent fee based upon any past-due benefits awarded on remand. See Crawford

17

v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2009).

18

Section 406(b) “does not displace contingent-fee agreements as the primary means by

19

which fees are set for successfully representing Social Security benefits claims in court.”

20

Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002). Instead, when evaluating a request for fees

21

under § 406(b), a court must “look[ ] first to the contingent-fee agreement, then test[ ] it for

22

reasonableness.” Id. at 808. The fee applicant has the burden of demonstrating that “the fee

23

sought is reasonable for the services rendered,” and in no case can an attorney recover fees that

24

exceed the 25 percent limit set under § 406(b). Id. at 807.

25

In determining the reasonableness of fees requested pursuant to 406(b), courts must

26

analyze the character of representation and the results achieved. Id. at 808. Relevant to that

27

inquiry is consideration of: whether counsel provided substandard representation; any dilatory

28

conduct by counsel to accumulate additional fees; whether the benefits achieved are
3

1

disproportional to the time spent on the case; and the risk counsel assumed by excepting the case.

2

See Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151-52.

3

A court must offset an award of § 406(b) attorneys’ fees by any award of fees granted

4

under the EAJA. Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 796; see also Parrish v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 698

5

F.3d 1215, 1218 (9th Cir. 2012).

6
7

DISCUSSION
Ms. Siegfried has demonstrated that the amount of fees requested is reasonable for the
services rendered. See Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807. First, while not dispositive, the contingent-fee

9

agreement is within the 25 percent limit permitted under Section 406(b). (See Dkt. No. 22-1 at 1

10

(providing that Plaintiff “agree[s] to pay [her] attorney a fee of up to twenty-five percent . . . of all

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

past-due benefits awarded,” and “[a]t no point will Ms. Siegfried charge more than 25% of all

12

past-due benefits”).) Second, there is no indication that a reduction of fees is warranted due to any

13

substandard performance by Ms. Siegfried or that she delayed the proceedings in district court to

14

increase the amount of fees. To the contrary, Ms. Siegfried provided 38.8 hours of work on

15

Plaintiff’s appeal, (see Dkt. No. 22-2 at ¶ 12), and ultimately achieved favorable results for

16

Plaintiff. Third, the fees requested are not disproportional to the time Ms. Siegfried spent on the

17

case; indeed, the contingent-fee agreement notes that “Ms. Siegfried charges $350 an hour,” which

18

would put her fees in this case at $13,580 if calculated on an hourly basis. (See Dkt. No. 22-1 at

19

1.) Nor are the fees disproportional to the benefits achieved; in addition to past-due benefits,

20

Plaintiff will receive ongoing disability benefits. (See Dkt. Nos. 22-4 – 22-6.) Finally, Ms.

21

Siegfried assumed a substantial risk of not recovering fees by representing Plaintiff on a

22

contingency basis. Plaintiff and Ms. Siegfried entered into the contingent-fee agreement prior to

23

the filing of the underlying action in district court. At that time, the Commissioner had denied

24

Plaintiff’s application for disability benefits and Ms. Siegfried could not know that the Court

25

would remand to the Commissioner for a further hearing.

26

Accordingly, the Court finds that the amount of requested fees is reasonable. Further,

27

because Ms. Siegfried never received the EAJA fees previously awarded by the Court and that

28

amount was instead garnished by the IRS to satisfy Plaintiff’s tax debt, (see Dkt. No. 22-3; see
4

1

also Dkt. No. 22-2 at ¶ 8), there is no EAJA offset.
CONCLUSION

2
3

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Counsel’s motion for attorney’s fees.

4

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

5

$11,449.68, payable to the Law Office of Katherine Siegfried.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 10, 2019

8
9
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5