Styles v. Colvin

Filing 23

ORDER granting 21 counsel's Motion for Attorney Fees pursuant to 42 USC 406(b). The Commissioner is ordered to pay the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing $9,000.00. The hearing scheduled for 1/29/2018, before this Court, isvacated. Signed by Judge John A. Houston on 1/16/2018. (jpp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID STYLES,

Case No.: 14-cv-2229-JAH-WVG
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER GRANTING COUNSEL'S
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,

15
16

Defendants.

17
18
19

Before the Court is Counsel's Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

20

406(b) filed by attorney Lawrence Rohlfing (“Counsel”), who represented David Styles

21

(“Plaintiff”) in this case. [Doc. No. 21]. Counsel seeks the payment of attorney fees in the

22

amount of $9,000.00. For the reasons set forth below, Counsel's motion is GRANTED.

23

BACKGROUND

24

On June 27, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Title II application for a period of disability and

25

disability insurance benefits, and a Title XVI application for supplemental security income

26

benefits, alleging disability beginning November 1, 2010. See Doc. No. 18. On May 17,

27

2013, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued a written decision finding Plaintiff not

28

disabled and denied benefits. Id. Plaintiff appealed the denial of benefits to this Court.
1
14-cv-2229-JAH-WVG

1

On March 31, 2016, this Court vacated the ALJ’s decision and remanded the case

2

back for further proceedings. Id. On remand, the Commissioner issued a decision

3

approving Plaintiff’s application for benefits and indicated the retroactive benefits totaled

4

$65, 004.00. See Doc. No. 21–1, ¶ 4. The Commissioner has withheld $16,251.00, or 25%,

5

from Plaintiff’s past due benefits in order to pay Counsel. In support of his motion, Counsel

6

declared he expended a total of 32.9 hours of attorney time working on this case.

7

Additionally he provided the Court with the contingency fee agreement and information

8

pertaining to the average and median hourly rates that attorneys charge in the California

9

region. Id. at ¶¶ 5, 9. The Commissioner filed a response to Counsel’s motion wherein no

10

position was taken as to whether the gross fee Counsel is requesting is reasonable. See Doc.

11

No. 22.

12

LEGAL STANDARD

13

The Social Security Act provides:

14

Whenever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant ... who was
represented before the court by an attorney, the court may determine and
allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such representation, not in
excess of 25 percent of the total of the past-due benefits to which the
claimant is entitled by reason of such judgment, and the Commissioner of
Social Security may ... certify the amount of such fee for payment to such
attorney out of, and not in addition to, the amount of such past-due benefits.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

42 U.S.C. § 406(b ); see also Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. at 789 (2002). In determining
an award under section 406(b), courts first look to the contingency fee agreement, then test
it for reasonableness. Id. at 808. To aid the court in assessing reasonableness, the court may
require the claimant's attorney to submit a record of the hours spent representing the
claimant and a statement of the lawyer's normal hourly billing charge for non-contingentfee cases. Id.
\\
\\
\\
2
14-cv-2229-JAH-WVG

1
2

DISCUSSION
a. Contingency Fee Agreement

3

On August 28, 2014, Plaintiff and Counsel entered a contingency fee agreement. See

4

Doc. No. 21-2. Plaintiff agreed that Counsel's fee would be "25% of the back pay awarded

5

upon reversal of any unfavorable ALJ decision for work before the court.” Id. There is no

6

evidence the fee agreement was entered into involuntarily, or that the agreement benefits

7

the attorney more than the client. Counsel’s request of $9,000.00 is notably less than the

8

25% of back pay agreed to in the contingency agreement and set aside by the Social

9

Security Administration. The requested amount does not exceed the 25% limit imposed by

10
11

42 U.S.C. § 406(b).
b. Reasonableness

12

In Gisbrecht, the Supreme Court directed lower courts to consider “the character of

13

the representation and the results the representative achieved” to determine

14

“reasonableness.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808. A court may properly reduce the fee for

15

substandard performance, delay, or benefits that are not in proportion to the time spent on

16

the case. Id.; see also Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1151 (9th Cir. 2009). Here,

17

Counsel seeks a fee of $9,000.00 of the past-due benefits paid or payable to Plaintiff. The

18

Social Security Administration calculates Plaintiffs past-due benefits at $65,004.00. See

19

Doc. No. 21–1, ¶ 4. In using the reasonableness test laid out in Gisbrecht, there is no

20

evidence to indicate Counsel's representation was inadequate or insufficient. On the

21

contrary, the case was decided in favor of Plaintiff and was remanded for the eventual

22

awarding of benefits. Additionally, there is no evidence that suggests any delay on

23

Counsel's part. Regarding the last factor, Counsel is asking for $9,000 out of the $65,004.00

24

that was awarded to Plaintiff for past due benefits, which is far less than the 25% percent

25

restriction. Counsel declared he spent 39.9 hours working on Plaintiff’s case. This equates

26

to Counsel charging approximately $225.56 per hour, which is far less than the $439 per

27

hour rate that the average attorney charges in the California region. See Doc. No. 21–7.

28

Therefore, this Court determines that Counsel’s rate is reasonable.
3
14-cv-2229-JAH-WVG

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

2

1. Counsel’s Motion for Attorney Fees is GRANTED;

3

2. The Commissioner is ORDERED to pay the Law Offices of Lawrence D.

4
5

Rohlfing $9,000.00; and
3. The hearing scheduled for January 29, 2018, before this Court, is

6

VACATED.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

DATED: January 16, 2018
_________________________________
JOHN A. HOUSTON
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
14-cv-2229-JAH-WVG