Regan v. Berryhill

Filing 29

Order by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman granting 25 Motion for Attorney Fees. (rmilc1s, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2020)

Download PDF
Case 3:17-cv-02658-EDL Document 29 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 EUREKA DIVISION 7 8 JULIE EMMA REGAN, Plaintiff, 9 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES v. 10 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 17-cv-02658-EDL (RMI) NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Re: Dkt. No. 25 Defendant. 12 13 On March 28, 2018, Judge Laporte entered an order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for 14 15 Summary Judgment, reversing the ALJ’s determination, and remanding this matter for further 16 proceedings. See (dkt. 20). On May 30, 2018, Judge Laporte granted the parties’ Stipulation for 17 Award and Payment of Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) Fees, Costs, and Expenses in the 18 amount of $7,250.00. See (dkt. 36). On March 29, 2020, the Social Security Administration 19 awarded Plaintiff past-due benefits in the amount of $94,397.1 See (dkt. 25-1). Plaintiff’s attorney now seeks an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 20 21 406(b)(1). For the reasons explained below, the court will grant the motion. 22 DISCUSSION 23 Unlike the EAJA, 42 U.S.C § 406(b) does not authorize the prevailing party to recover fees 24 from the losing party. Rather, Section 406 authorizes fees payable from the successful party’s 25 recovery. Specifically, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A), provides that “[w]henever a court renders a 26 judgment favorable to a claimant . . . who was represented before the court by an attorney, the 27 28 1 The total award was $94,397, and the Commission withheld twenty-five percent of the past-due benefits, $22,490.25, to pay Plaintiff’s appointed representative. See (dkt. 25-1). Case 3:17-cv-02658-EDL Document 29 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 2 1 court may determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such representation, not 2 in excess of 25% of the total of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled by reason of 3 such judgment.” Courts addressing Section 406(b) fee determinations must do so “by looking first 4 to the contingent-fee agreement, then testing it for reasonableness.” Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 5 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 808 (2002)). In 6 considering whether the contingent-fee agreement is reasonable, courts may consider factors 7 including “the character of the representation and the result the representation achieved.” 8 Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808. In this case, Plaintiff and her attorney contracted for a contingent fee in the amount equal 10 to twenty-five percent of the past due benefits awarded to Plaintiff and her family if she won her 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 case. See (dkt. 25-2). This amount is allowable under Section 406(b)(1)(A). The court finds these 12 fees eminently reasonable in light of the excellent result achieved by Plaintiff’s attorney, i.e., the 13 granting of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, reversal of the ALJ’s decision, and remand 14 for further proceedings which resulted in an award of more than $90,000 in past-due benefits. 15 Defendant does not dispute the reasonableness of the fees sought by Plaintiff’s counsel, noting that 16 the Commissioner is not a party to the contingent-fee agreement between Plaintiff and her 17 attorney. See (dkt. 27). The court finds no basis to reduce the requested fees. 18 The parties agree that the court must account for the attorney’s fees paid by the 19 Commissioner on her own behalf pursuant to the EAJA. Accordingly, the court HEREBY 20 GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 406(b)(1) in the amount of 21 $22,490.25 and directs Plaintiff’s counsel to refund $7,250.00 to Plaintiff. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 15, 2020 24 25 ROBERT M. ILLMAN United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28 2

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?