Cardenas v. Saul

Filing 37

ORDER by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 33 Motion for Attorney Fees. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2022)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JAIME C.,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 20-cv-03760-JSC
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY’S FEES

v.
ANDREW M. SAUL,

Re: Dkt. No. 33

Defendant.

12
13

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

14

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

15

Security Administration’s denial of social security disability benefits. (Dkt. No. 33.) After careful

16

consideration of Plaintiff’s motion and the relevant legal authority, the Court determines that oral

17

argument is unnecessary, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and GRANTS the motion for attorney’s

18

fees pursuant to Section 406(b).

19
20

BACKGROUND
This case stems from Plaintiff’s appeal of the Social Security Administration’s (“SSA’s”)

21

denial of social security benefits for a combination of physical and mental impairments, including:

22

low back injury, bilateral hip injury, depression, anxiety, and insomnia. On March 9, 2022, the

23

Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, denied Defendant’s motion, and

24

remanded for a calculation and award of benefits. (Dkt. No. 31.)

25

Following remand, Plaintiff was notified that he had been awarded disability benefits as of

26

November 2008. (Dkt. No. 33-3.) Plaintiff’s children were also awarded disability benefits on his

27

behalf. (Id.) The total amount of past due benefits owed to Plaintiff and his auxiliaries (children)

28

was $256,354.90. (Id.; Dkt. No. 33-4.) SSA withheld a total of $64,089.50 from these awards for

1

attorney’s fees as 25 percent of the past-due benefits. (Dkt. No. 33-3 at 3, 8, 11, 14; Dkt. No. 34-

2

4.) Plaintiff’s counsel thereafter filed the now pending motion for attorney’s fees for work

3

performed in this Court under Section 406(b). (Dkt. No. 33.) Pursuant to Plaintiff and his

4

counsel’s contingency fee agreement for this case, counsel may seek fees up to 25 percent of any

5

past-due benefits awarded to Plaintiff and his auxiliaries. (Dkt. No. 33-2 at 2.) Counsel requests

6

fees in the amount of $55,387.13; that amount represents approximately 25 percent of Plaintiff’s

7

past-due benefits less $8,701.60, which is the amount that Plaintiff’s counsel could have sought—

8

but did not—in fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). Counsel

9

agrees that he will also refund Plaintiff $20,206.70 which is the amount he received in EAJA fees

10

for representing Plaintiff in his first two appeals. Case Nos. 13-3321, 16-1140. (Dkt. No. 33 at 7.)
Plaintiff's counsel served Plaintiff with a copy of the motion. (Dkt. No. 33-1 at ¶ 13.) The

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Commissioner filed an untimely response to Plaintiff’s motion which incorrectly argues that the

13

requested fee of $55,387.13 is in excess of the 25 percent agreed to under the parties’ contingency

14

agreement and withheld by the Agency. (Dkt. No. 36.) The Commissioner’s response ignores

15

that Plaintiff’s retainer agreement with counsel defined past-due benefits as the award received by

16

counsel and his auxiliaries—and here Plaintiff’s auxiliaries received separate awards totaling

17

$42,373.50 from which a total of $14,124.50 was withheld. (Dkt. No. 33-2 at 2; Dkt. No. 33-3 at

18

7-14.)

19

LEGAL STANDARD

20

Section 406(b) provides that “[w]henever a court renders a judgment favorable to a [social

21

security] claimant under this subchapter who was represented before the court by an attorney, the

22

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

23

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

24

42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). A court may award such a fee even if the court’s judgment did not

25

immediately result in an award of past-due benefits; where the court, for instance, remands for

26

further consideration, the court may calculate the 25 percent fee based upon any past-due benefits

27

awarded on remand. See, e.g., Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1144 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

28

Under Section 406(b), a court must serve “as an independent check” of contingency fee
2

1

agreements “to assure that they yield reasonable results.” Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789,

2

807 (2002). Section 406(b) “does not displace contingent-fee agreements within the statutory

3

ceiling; instead, [Section] 406(b) instructs courts to review for reasonableness fees yielded by

4

those agreements.” Id. at 808-09. The court’s review of a fee agreement is based on the character

5

of the representation and the results achieved, see Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808, and can include

6

analyzing: whether counsel provided substandard representation; any dilatory conduct by counsel

7

to accumulate additional fees; whether the requested fees are excessively large in relation to the

8

benefits achieved; and the risk counsel assumed by accepting the case. See Crawford, 586 F.3d at

9

1151-52.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

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

11

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

12

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

13
14

ANALYSIS
Plaintiff’s counsel has demonstrated that the amount of fees requested is reasonable for the

15

services rendered. See Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807. First, while not dispositive, Plaintiff’s and

16

counsel’s contingency fee agreement is within the 25 percent threshold permitted under Section

17

406(b), as the agreement provides that counsel will not ask for a fee of more than 25 percent of the

18

total past-due benefits awarded. (Dkt. No. 33-2 at 1.) Second, there is no indication that a

19

reduction in fees is warranted due to any substandard performance by counsel or that counsel

20

delayed these proceedings in an effort to increase the amount of fees awarded. To the contrary,

21

counsel provided substantial work and achieved favorable results for Plaintiff representing him for

22

three appeals and ultimately securing an order of remand for an award of benefits. (Dkt. No. 31.)

23

Nor is the amount of fees, $55,387.13, excessive; in fact, this is less than the amount the SSA

24

specified as 25 percent of Plaintiff’s past-due benefits because counsel has deducted the amount he

25

could have sought in additional EAJA fees. See, e.g., Ciletti v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-05646-EMC,

26

2019 WL 144584, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2019) (awarding $35,442.00 in fees following an award

27

of $150,993 in past-due benefits); G.S. v. Kijakazi, No. 19-CV-07543-JSC, 2022 WL 1452772, at

28

*2 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2022) (awarding fees in the amount of $30,233 following a past-due benefit
3

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

award of $120,932); Eckert v. Berryhill, No. 15-CV-04461-JCS, 2017 WL 3977379, at *3 (N.D.

2

Cal. Sept. 11, 2017) (awarding $16,566.25 in fees following an award of $66,265 in retroactive

3

benefits); Devigili v. Berryhill, No. 15-CV-02237-SI, 2017 WL 2462194, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 7,

4

2017) (awarding $15,278.00 in fees following an award of $76,391.00 in retroactive benefits).

5

Lastly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s counsel assumed a substantial risk of not recovering fees

6

when he accepted this case. Plaintiff and counsel entered into the contingency fee agreement in

7

2013—well before the instant action. (Dkt. No. 33-2.) At that time, the SSA had completely

8

denied Plaintiff any requested benefits. Counsel then represented Plaintiff through three appeals

9

over a nine-year period, each of which secured a remand to the Agency and the last of which

10

resulted in remand for an award of benefits. Accordingly, the Court finds that the amount of

11

requested fees is reasonable.
CONCLUSION

12
13

For the reasons described above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for fees.

14

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

15

$55,387.13 payable to the Weems Law Offices. Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to refund the

16

previously awarded EAJA fees, in the amount of $20,206.70 to Plaintiff.

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 16, 2022

20
21
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4