Ahrari v. Saul

Filing 24

ORDER Granting Motion for 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) Fees re (ECF 22 ). Signed by District Judge Andrew G. Schopler on 01/27/2025. (mef)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

HABIBULLAH A.,

4

Case No.: 20-cv-1971-AGS
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
42 U.S.C. § 406(b) FEES (ECF 22)

Plaintiff,

5

v.

6

Carolyn COLVIN,

7

Defendant.

8
9

Plaintiff’s counsel moves for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C § 406(b). Counsel

10

requests $35,000.00, offset by an order “to credit [plaintiff] for EAJA fees previously paid

11

in the amount of $4,782.87.” (ECF 22, at 1.) This request represents approximately 23%

12

of plaintiff’s past due benefits, which total $160,376.00. (ECF 22, at 5.) Plaintiff has not

13

objected. The government does not oppose. (See ECF 23, at 2.)

14

“Whenever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant,” “the court may

15

determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such representation, not in

16

excess of 25 percent of the total of the past-due benefits . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 406(b).

17

In evaluating an attorney-fee request, courts “must respect the primacy of lawful attorney-

18

client fee arrangements,” “looking first to the contingent-fee agreement, then testing for

19

reasonableness.” Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1148 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation

20

omitted). “Within the 25 percent boundary, . . . the attorney for the successful claimant

21

must show that the fee sought is reasonable for the services rendered.” Gisbrecht v.

22

Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002). Factors the court may consider in evaluating the

23

reasonableness of the attorney-fee award are: “(1) the character of the representation;

24

(2) the results achieved; (3) whether the attorney engaged in dilatory conduct; (4) whether

25

the benefits are large in comparison to the amount of time counsel spent on the case; and

26

(5) the attorney’s record of hours worked and counsel’s regular hourly billing charge for

27

non-contingent cases.” Avina v. Saul, No. 18-CV-1728-W-MSB, 2021 WL 2662309, at *1

28

(S.D. Cal. June 29, 2021).
1
20-cv-1971-AGS

1

Plaintiff assented in his contingency agreement to a fee of “25% of the past due

2

benefits awarded upon reversal of any unfavorable ALJ decision for work before the

3

court.” (ECF 22-1, at 1.) This bargained-for percentage is presumptively valid. See

4

Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807–08. Counsel invested her resources on contingency and

5

achieved remand for her client. (See ECF 16; ECF 17.) On remand, plaintiff secured a

6

favorable decision and was granted past-due disability benefits of $160,376.00. (ECF 22,

7

at 5.) There is no evidence of dilatory conduct or undue delay. Indeed, counsel expended

8

only 20.5 hours of attorney time and 2.6 hours of paralegal time to achieve these results,

9

which is reasonable. (See ECF 22, at 5); see also Patterson v. Apfel, 99 F. Supp. 2d 1212,

10

1214 n.2 (C.D. Cal. 2000) (finding “33.75 hours spent by plaintiff’s counsel” to fall “within

11

the approved range” for fees after surveying “several dozen cases in which attorney’s fees

12

were awarded in social security cases”). Although this case resulted in a voluntary remand,

13

that was not until counsel had already reviewed the 900-page administrative record and

14

filed her brief. (See ECF 11 & 13.)

15

Counsel appears to have been so efficient, in fact, that the effective hourly rate for

16

the attorney time was boosted to a seemingly lofty $1,707.31. Yet given the success

17

achieved, this figure is not unreasonable compared to, and does not grossly exceed, fees

18

that courts have approved. See, e.g., Yolanda E. v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 21-cv-

19

8704-AGR, ECF 27, at 2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2023) (allowing effective hourly rate of

20

“approximately $2,000” on a total of $4,200); Tinajero Cerda v. Berryhill, No. 1:17-CV-

21

00553-SKO, 2019 WL 2058653, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 9, 2019) (approving an effective

22

rate of $1,600.79 per hour); Bradley H. v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 2:18-cv-03611-

23

AFM, ECF 38 (C.D. Cal. June 22, 2020) (accepting an effective hourly rate of $1,709);

24

Palos v. Colvin, No. CV 15-04261-DTB, 2016 WL 5110243, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept, 20,

25

2016) (finding an effective hourly rate of $1,546.39 reasonable in 2016 for an attorney-fee

26

award of $15,000); Kazanjian v. Astrue, No. 09 civ. 3678(BMC), 2011 WL 2847439, at *2

27

(E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2011) (awarding $48,064 at an effective hourly rate of $2,433).

28
2
20-cv-1971-AGS

1

When a valid attorney-client fee arrangement exists, the fee statute is not meant to

2

displace that agreement, but to act as a check on the reasonableness of fees. See Gisbrecht,

3

535 U.S. at 793. And in the time since Gisbrecht, “district courts generally have been

4

deferential to the terms of contingency fee contracts in § 406(b) cases, accepting that the

5

resulting de facto hourly rates may exceed those for non[-]contingency-fee arrangements.”

6

Hearn v. Barnhart, 262 F. Supp. 2d 1033, 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2003). Especially since counsel

7

here seeks fees “lower than the fees bargained for in the contingent-fee agreements,” the

8

Court concludes that “the requested fees” are reasonable and plaintiff’s counsel should not

9

be penalized for efficiency. See Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151.

10

Counsel’s unopposed request for fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) is GRANTED.

11

Counsel is entitled to $35,000.00 out of plaintiff’s past-due benefits. Counsel must

12

reimburse plaintiff the $4,782.87 EAJA fees already paid. (See ECF 22, at 1); see also

13

Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 796 (noting that, when section 406(b) fees are awarded, “the

14

claimant’s attorney must refund to the claimant the amount of the smaller [EAJA] fee”).

15

Dated: January 27, 2025

16
17
18

___________________________

Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
20-cv-1971-AGS