Williams v. Berryhill

Filing 37

ORDER. In the attached order, the court grants 32 the plaintiff's counsel's motion for attorney's fees. (lblc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2021)

Case 3:18-cv-07126-LB Document 37 Filed 07/19/21 Page 1 of 3

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

ARTHUR J. WILLIAMS,

Case No. 18-cv-07126-LB

Plaintiff,

12

ORDER GRANTING THE
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S MOTION
FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

v.

13
14

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,

Re: ECF No. 32

Defendant.

15
16
17

INTRODUCTION
The court previously granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and remanded the

18
19

action to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings.1 On remand, the plaintiff

20

received a past-due benefits award.2 His counsel now seeks fees of $16,916.00, which is within the

21

25-percent limit in 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) and the representation agreement with his client.3 The court

22

can decide this matter without oral argument. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). The court grants the motion.4

23
24
25
26

See Order – ECF No. 26. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (ECF); pinpoint
citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.
1

2

Notice of Award – ECF No. 32-3 at 1–3.

27

3

Motion for Attorney’s Fees – ECF No. 32.

28

4

The court declines the plaintiff’s counsel’s request to apply a 4.08 multiplier. See id. at 4–6.

ORDER – No. 18-cv-07126-LB

Case 3:18-cv-07126-LB Document 37 Filed 07/19/21 Page 2 of 3

STATEMENT

1
2

The Commissioner awarded the plaintiff $67,664.00 in retroactive Disability Insurance

3

Benefits. In the notice of award, the Commissioner informed the plaintiff that the agency was

4

withholding $16,916.00 — 25 percent of the past-due benefits (what it usually withholds) — to

5

pay his attorney’s fee.5 The plaintiff also has a fee agreement with his lawyer that provides for a

6

25-percent contingency fee of the past-due benefits owed to him.6 The court previously awarded

7

$4,080.39 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).7 The plaintiff’s

8

attorney now seeks the $16,916.00 in fees.
The Commissioner filed a response to the plaintiff’s motion asking the court to consider the

9

reasonableness of the fee award (including the plaintiffs’ counsel’s hourly rate) and order the

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

plaintiff’s counsel to refund the EAJA fees to the plaintiff.8 The plaintiff’s counsel agreed that he

12

will refund the EAJA fees to the plaintiff.9

13
ANALYSIS

14

Under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), “[w]henever a court renders a judgment favorable to a [social

15
16

security] claimant . . . , the court may determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable

17

fee” for the claimant’s counsel, which can be no more than 25 percent of the total of past-due

18

benefits awarded to the claimant. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). A court may award such a fee even if

19

the court’s judgment did not immediately result in an award of past-due benefits; where the court

20

has rendered a judgment favorable to a claimant by reversing an earlier determination by an ALJ

21

and remanding for further consideration, the court may calculate the 25-percent fee based upon

22
23
24
Notice of Award – ECF No. 32-3 at 5–6; Mot for Attorney’s Fees – ECF No. 32-1 at 3–4 (¶ C.);
Commissioner’s Response to Motion – ECF No. 34 at 2.
5

25

6

Fee Agreement – ECF No. 32-4 at 1.

7

Order – ECF No. 31.

27

8

Commissioner’s Response to Motion – ECF No. 34 at 1–5.

28

9

Motion for Attorney’s Fees – ECF No. 32-1 at 2; Reply – ECF No. 35 at 1.

26

ORDER – No. 18-cv-07126-LB

2

Case 3:18-cv-07126-LB Document 37 Filed 07/19/21 Page 3 of 3

1

any past-due benefits awarded on remand. See, e.g., Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir.

2

2009) (en banc).

3

In considering a motion for attorney’s fees under § 406(b), the court must review counsel’s

4

request “as an independent check” to ensure that the contingency fee agreement “yield[s]

5

reasonable results.” See Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002). Section 406(b) “does

6

not displace contingent-fee agreements within the statutory ceiling; instead, § 406(b) instructs

7

courts to review for reasonableness fees yielded by those agreements.” Id. at 808–09. To evaluate

8

the reasonableness of a fee request under § 406(b), the court considers the character of the

9

representation and the results achieved. Id. at 808; see also Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151. This
includes analyzing whether substandard representation justifies awarding less than 25 percent in

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

fees; any delay in the proceedings attributable to the attorney requesting the fee; whether the

12

benefits of the representation are out of proportion to time spent on the case; and the risk counsel

13

assumed by accepting the case. See Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151–52 (citing Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at

14

808). If an attorney “is responsible for delay. . . a reduction [of fees] is in order so that the attorney

15

will not profit from the accumulation of benefits during the pendency of the case in court.”

16

Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808 (cleaned up); see also Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151.

17

The court must offset an award of § 406(b) attorney’s fees by any award of fees granted under

18

the EAJA. Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 796; Parrish v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 698 F.3d 1215, 1218 (9th

19

Cir. 2012).

20
21

The 25-percent contingency-fee agreement is within § 406(b)(1)(A)’s ceiling, and the amount
is reasonable.

22

CONCLUSION

23

The court finds that a fee award of $16,916.00 is reasonable under § 406(b). The plaintiff’s

24

counsel must refund the plaintiff the $4,080.39 in EAJA fees, which results in a net fee award of

25

$12,835.61.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

Dated: July 19, 2021

28
ORDER – No. 18-cv-07126-LB

______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge
3