McNamara v. Saul

Filing 48

ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero granting 43 Motion for Attorney Fees. (jcslc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2024)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
J.M.,

7

Case No. 20-cv-07196-JCS
Plaintiff,

8
v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY FEES

9
KILOLO KIJAKAZI,

10

Re: Dkt. No. 43

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

I.

INTRODUCTION
Helen Zane (“counsel”), who represented J.M. in this matter under a contingency fee

14
15

agreement, brings a Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (“Motion”), seeking

16

an award of $32,085.00 in attorney fees for work before this Court. For the reasons stated below,

17

the Motion is GRANTED. 1

18

II.

BACKGROUND

19

J.M. entered into a contingent fee agreement with counsel providing that counsel would be

20

awarded 25% of all past-due benefits J.M. and their family received as a result of this action. Zane

21

Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. C (fee agreement). J.M. initiated this action to seek review of the final decision by

22

the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“the Commissioner”) denying their

23

Application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act and

24

supplemental security income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. On March 2,

25

2022, the Court granted J.M.’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s motion

26

for summary judgment and remanded to the Social Security Administration for immediate

27
28

1

The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).

1

calculation and award of benefits. Dkt. no. 32.
On remand, the Commissioner initially notified J.M. that they would be awarded

2
3

$92,201.00 in past due benefits, and that the Commissioner was withholding $23,050.25 to cover a

4

potential fee award by the Court. Zane Decl. ¶ 6 & Ex. A (July 3, 2022 Notice). Subsequently, the

5

Commissioner notified J.M. that the past due benefits amount had been reduced to $84,918.55 to

6

account for past SSI payments; the amount withheld for attorneys’ fees remained the same as

7

stated in the previous notice. Zane Decl. ¶ 8 & Ex. D (January 28, 2023 Notice). The

8

Commissioner sent an additional notice dated March 14, 2023 stating that past due auxiliary

9

benefits for J.M.’s minor child amounted to $46,088.00 and that $11,522.00 had been withheld for

10

attorneys’ fees. Zane Decl. ¶ 10 & Ex. B.
On June 22, 2022, the Court approved a stipulated award of fees in the amount of $7,000

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). In the Motion, counsel

13

requests a fee of $32,085.00 under the contingency fee contract and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), noting in

14

the Motion that if her request for fees under Section 406(b) is granted, the fees awarded pursuant

15

to the EAJA stipulation would be paid to J.M. The requested amount constitutes 23.2% of the past

16

due benefits awarded to Plaintiff and their minor child if the original past due benefit calculation

17

amount of $92,201.00 is used. If the reduced amount of J.M.’s past due benefits of $84,918.55 is

18

used, the requested amount constitutes 25% of the past due benefits awarded to J.M. and their

19

minor child. Zane has offered time records showing that the total attorney time spent on the case

20

was 35.65 hours. Zane Decl. ¶ 18 & Ex. F. Thus, counsel seeks fees at an effective hourly rate of

21

$900.

22

In the Motion, counsel argues that her request is reasonable under Gisbrecht v. Barnhart,

23

535 U.S. 789, 122 (2002) because J.M. entered into a valid contingent fee agreement with Counsel

24

and that agreement required Counsel to assume the risk that she would receive no compensation

25

for the time spent representing J.M in this action if J.M. did not prevail. She further asserts that

26

the amount she requests in fees is reasonable in light of the services performed and the result

27

obtained. The Commissioner filed a response in which it takes no position as to the

28

reasonableness of the fee request. Dkt. no. 47.
2

1

III.

ANALYSIS
The scheme established by Congress for attorney fee awards in cases involving social

2
security claims is described by the Supreme Court as follows:
3
4
5
6
7
8

Fees for representation of individuals claiming Social Security oldage, survivor, or disability benefits, both at the administrative level
and in court, are governed by prescriptions Congress originated in
1965. Social Security Amendments of 1965, 79 Stat. 403, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. § 406. . . . The statute deals with the
administrative and judicial review stages discretely: § 406(a) governs
fees for representation in administrative proceedings; § 406(b)
controls fees for representation in court. See also 20 CFR §
404.1728(a) (2001).
Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 793–94. Subsection 406(b) provides, in relevant part, that “[w]henever a

9
court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant under this subchapter who was represented
10
before the court by an attorney, the court may determine and allow as part of its judgment a
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

reasonable fee for such representation, not in excess of 25 percent of the total of the past-due
12
benefits to which the claimant is entitled by reason of such judgment, and the Commissioner of
13
Social Security may . . . certify the amount of such fee for payment to such attorney out of, and
14
15
16
17
18

not in addition to, the amount of such past-due benefits.” 42 U.S.C. § 406(b).
Under Gisbrecht, courts should “approach fee determinations [under § 406(b)] by looking
first to the contingent-fee agreement, then testing it for reasonableness,” and may reduce the
recovery “based on the character of the representation and the results the representative achieved.”
Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808. The Ninth Circuit has applied Gisbrecht to mean that “court[s] may

19
properly reduce the fee for substandard performance, delay, or benefits that are not in proportion
20
21

to the time spent on the case.” Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1151 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing
Gisbrecht 535 U.S. at 808). In this analysis, courts “generally have been deferential to the terms

22
of the contingency fee contracts in § 406(b) cases, accepting that the resulting de facto hourly rates
23

may exceed those for non-contingency fee arrangements,” noting that “basing a reasonableness

24
determination on a simple hourly rate basis is inappropriate when an attorney is working pursuant
25

to a reasonable contingency contract for which there runs a substantial risk of loss.” Hearn v.

26
Barnhart, 262 F. Supp. 2d 1033, 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2003).
27

In addition to the fees permitted under § 406(b), the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”),

28
3

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

enacted in 1980, allows a party who prevails against the United States in court, including a

2

successful Social Security benefits claimant, to receive an award of fees payable by the United

3

States if the Government’s position in the litigation was not “substantially justified.” Gisbrecht,

4

535 U.S. at 796 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A)). In contrast to fees awarded under § 406(b),

5

EAJA fees are based on the “time expended” and the attorney’s “[hourly] rate.” 28 U.S.C. §

6

2412(d)(1)(B). In Gisbrecht, the Supreme Court explained that “Congress harmonized fees

7

payable by the Government under EAJA with fees payable under § 406(b) out of the claimant’s

8

past-due Social Security benefits in this manner: Fee awards may be made under both

9

prescriptions, but the claimant’s attorney must refun[d] to the claimant the amount of the smaller

10

fee.’” 535 U.S. at 796 (citing Act of Aug. 5, 1985, Pub. L. No. 99–80, § 3, 99 Stat. 186 (1985)).

11

Accordingly, “an EAJA award offsets an award under [42 U.S.C. § 406(b)],” increasing “up to the

12

point the claimant receives 100 percent of the past-due benefits.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 796.
The Court finds Counsel’s request to be reasonable under Gisbrecht. First, Counsel has

13
14

presented a valid contingent fee agreement that provides for attorneys’ fees in the amount of 25%

15

of past due benefits awarded to J.M. and their family in the event J.M. prevails in this case. Zane

16

Decl., Ex. C. Second, she has supplied a timesheet documenting hours worked, id., Ex. F, which

17

the Court finds to be reasonable. Third, there is no evidence that Counsel’s work was substandard

18

or that the fee award is disproportionate to the amount of work on the case. Rather, counsel

19

obtained an excellent result for her client. The Court further finds that the effective rate of

20

$900/hour is within the range of what courts have approved in recent years. See, e.g., Crawford v.

21

Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142 1153 (9th Cir. 2009) (approving de facto hourly rates of $519, $875, and

22

$902 in 2009); Reddick v. Berryhill, 16-CV-29-BTM-BLM, 2019 WL 1112080, at *2–3 (S.D. Cal.

23

Mar. 11, 2019) (collecting cases and approving de facto hourly rate of $1,080).
For these reasons, the Court finds that the fees requested by counsel are reasonable under

24
25

Gisbrecht.

26

IV.

CONCLUSION

27

For the reasons stated above, the Motion is GRANTED. Counsel is awarded $32,085.00 in

28

fees. The EAJA fees previously awarded to counsel in this case, in the amount of $7,000, shall be
4

1
2

paid to J.M.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4
5
6

Dated: June 4, 2024
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
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