Shorts v. Colvin

Filing 33

Corrected ORDER granting 31 Counsel's Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to42 u.s.c. § 406(b) in the amount of $12,300.00. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 12/4/2017. (anh)

Download PDF
1 FILED 2 3 DEC 0 5 2017 4 CLERK US DIS l F11CT COURT SOUTHERN DISlRICT OF CALIFORNIA BY ____.... _ .._ _ - AtVI DEPUTY 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES VINCENT SHORTS, Case No.: 3:15-cv-01965-BEN-KSC Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 15 CORRECTED ORDER GRANTING COUNSEL'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO 42 u.s.c. § 406(b) Defendant. 16 17 18 Before the Court is Counsel's motion to correct order for attorney fees pursuant to 19 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) filed by Young Cho, the attorney representing Plaintiff Charles 20 Vincent Shorts. (Doc. No. 31.) The motion seeks the payment of attorney fees in the 21 amount of$12,300.00. For the reasons set forth below, Counsel's motion is GRANTED. 22 Ill 23 Ill 24 Ill 25 Ill 26 Ill 27 Ill 28 Ill 3: 15-cv-01965-BEN-KSC I , 1 BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiff was diagnosed with a malignant, inoperable, lethal brain stem tumor (or 3 "glioma") in 2010. He applied for disability insurance benefits, but the Administrative 4 Law Judge ("ALJ") found that Plaintiff was not disabled because his pain testimony was 5 "not entirely credible." Plaintiff appealed the denial of benefits to this Court. 6 On February 6, 2017, the Court ruled in Plaintiffs favor, reversing and remanding 7 for an award of benefits. The Commissioner effectuated this Court's decision, issuing a 8 notice indicating retroactive benefits of$49,461.00. The Commissioner withheld 25% of 9 past due benefits, or $12,365.25, to pay Plaintiffs Counsel. 10 Now before the Court, Counsel requests a fee of $12,300.00 under the contingency 11 fee contract. Counsel worked 42.4 hours on this case and has provided the Court with 12 time summaries. He has also provided the Court with the contingency fee agreement and 13 information pertaining to the average and median hourly rates that attorneys make in the 14 California region. (Doc. No. 27, Exs. 2-5.) 15 LEGAL STANDARD 16 The Social Security Act provides: 17 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 of25 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. 18 19 20 21 22 23 42 U.S.C. § 406(b ); see also Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. at 789 (2002). In 24 determining an award under section 406(b ), courts first look to the contingency fee 25 agreement, then test it for reasonableness. (Id.) at 808. To aid the Court in assessing 26 reasonableness, the Court may require the claimant's attorney to submit a record of the 27 hours spent representing the claimant and a statement of the lawyer's normal hourly 28 billing charge for noncontingent-fee cases. (Id.) 2 3: l 5-cv-01965-BEN-KSC ' 1 2 DISCUSSION A. 3 Contingency Fee Agreement On February 19, 2015, Mr. Cho and Mr. Shorts entered a contingency fee 4 agreement. (Doc. No. 27-2.) Mr. Shorts agreed that counsel's fee would be "25% of the 5 back pay awarded upon reversal of any unfavorable ALJ decision for work before the 6 court." (Id.) There is no evidence the fee agreement was entered into involuntarily, or 7 that it benefits the attorney more than the client. Mr. Cho's request of$12,300 is slightly 8 less than the 25% of back pay agreed to in the contingency agreement and set aside by 9 the Social Security Administration. The requested amount does not exceed the 25% limit 10 imposed by 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). 11 B. 12 Reasonableness 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.); Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1151 (9th Cir. 2009.) 17 Here, Counsel seeks a fee of$12,300 of the past-due benefits paid or payable to 18 Plaintiff. The Social Security Administration calculates Plaintiffs past-due benefits at 19 $49,461.00. (Doc. No. 27.) In using the reasonableness test laid out in Gisbrecht, there 20 is no evidence to indicate that Counsel's representation was inadequate or insufficient. 21 On the contrary, the case went in favor of the Plaintiff and was remanded for the 22 calculation and award of benefits. And, there is no evidence that suggests any delay on 23 Counsel's part. 24 Regarding the last factor, Counsel is asking for $12,300 out of the $49,461.00 that 25 was awarded to Plaintiff for past due benefits. Counsel spent 42.4 hours before the 26 District Court concerning this case. This would equate to Counsel charging 27 approximately $290 per hour, which is less than the $439 per hour rate that the average 28 attorney charges in the California region. (Doc. No. 27, Exs. 3-5.) 3 3: 15-cv-O 1965-BEN-KSC ;.· ' ~ . 1 Based on its review, the Court finds that the requested fee is reasonable. 2 3 4 5 ~ CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Counsel's motion for attorney fees (Doc. No. 27) is GRANTED. The Commissioner is ORDERED to pay Counsel $12,300.00. IT IS SO ORDERED. Thrtod' Deoemb.,.~017 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 3: 15-cv-O 1965-BEN-KSC

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?