Norris v. Berryhill
Filing
17
ORDER Granting 15 Motion for Attorney Fees Under 42 U.S.C. §406(b). Signed by Judge Thomas J. Whelan on 8/20/2019. (jao)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RICKY EARL NORRIS,
Case No.: 18-CV-0469 W (KSC)
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
14
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER 42
U.S.C. § 406(b) [DOC. 15]
ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of
Social Security Administration,
15
16
Defendant.
17
18
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s counsel, the Law Offices of Lawrence D.
19
Rohlfing’s (“Counsel”), motion for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. §406(b). Counsel
20
requests $10,000.00 in fees, with a credit to Plaintiff for the EAJA fees previously paid in
21
the amount of $777.39. On August 13, 2019, Defendant filed a response taking no
22
position on the request. (See Def’s Response [Doc. 16].) Plaintiff was served with the
23
motion and notified that any response had to be filed within 14 days. (Mot. [Doc. 15]
24
2:1–13.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to Counsel’s attorney’s fee request.
25
The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted, and without oral argument.
26
See Civ.L.R. 7.1.d. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion [Doc. 15].
27
1
28
18-CV-0469 W (KSC)
1
I.
DISCUSSION
2
Section 406(b) provides, in relevant part:
3
Whenever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant under this
subchapter 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 . . . .
4
5
6
7
Id. “In contrast to fees awarded under fee-shifting provisions such as 42 U.S.C. § 1988,
8
the fee is paid by the claimant out of the past-due benefits awarded; the losing party is not
9
responsible for payment.” Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1147 (9th Cir.2009) (en
10
banc) (citing Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 802, (2002)). “The goal of fee awards
11
under section 460(b) is to provide adequate incentive to represent claimants while
12
ensuring that the usually meager disability benefits received are not greatly depleted.”
13
Thomas v. Colvin, 2015 WL 1529331, *1 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (citing Cotter v. Bowen, 879
14
F.2d 359, 365 (8th Cir.1989), abrogated on other grounds in Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807).
15
In evaluating an attorney’s fee request, courts “must respect ‘the primacy of lawful
16
attorney-client fee arrangements,’ … ‘looking first to the contingent-fee agreement, then
17
testing for reasonableness.’” Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1148 (quoting Gilbrecht, 535 U.S. at
18
793, 808). Factors courts may consider in evaluating the reasonableness of the attorney
19
fee award are: (1) the character of the representation; (2) the results achieved; (3) whether
20
the attorney engaged in dilatory conduct; (4) whether the benefits are large in comparison
21
to the amount of time counsel spent on the case; and (5) the attorney’s record of hours
22
worked and counsel's regular hourly billing charge for non-contingent cases. Thomas,
23
2015 WL 1529331, *2 (citing Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1148).
24
Here, Counsel was successful in obtaining a favorable result for Plaintiff in this
25
Court by securing a remand to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings.
26
(Order [Doc. 10] 1:24–2:2.) On remand, the Commissioner granted Plaintiff’s
27
28
2
18-CV-0469 W (KSC)
1
application for benefits, entitling him to receive $83,082.00 in retroactive benefits.
2
(Shapiro Decl. [Doc. 15-1] ¶¶ 3, 4, citing Ex. 2 and Ex. 3.1) Thus, no reduction is
3
warranted due to a substandard performance, nor is there any basis to reduce fees based
4
on dilatory conduct, as there is no indication Counsel caused any excessive delay.
5
Additionally, the Court has reviewed the amount of time spent on this matter, Counsel’s
6
experience, and the United States Consumer Law Attorney Fee Survey Report 2015–
7
2016. (See Shapiro Decl., ¶¶ 5–8, Ex. 4 and Ex. 5.) Considering all these factors, the
8
Court finds the effective hourly rate is consistent with the market and the work on this
9
matter reasonable.
10
II.
11
12
CONCLUSION & ORDER
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the motion for attorney’s fees
[Doc. 15] and ORDERS as follows:
13
1.
14
2.
15
3.
16
The Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing is AWARDED $10,000.00 in
attorney’s fees.
The Commissioner shall certify the fee of $10,000 payable to the Law
Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing.
The Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing shall reimburse Plaintiff Ricky
Earl Norris $777.39 for the EAJA fees previously paid.
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20
Dated: August 20, 2019
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
27
28
Brian C. Shapiro’s declaration, and all exhibits referenced therein are attached to the Motion.
3
18-CV-0469 W (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?