Irizarry v. Kijakazi

Filing 31

ORDER Granting 28 Plaintiff's Counsel's Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher on 3/7/2025. (CC:SSA) (exs)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AIDA I.,

Case No.: 22-cv-1423-DEB
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

LELAND DUDEK, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,1

15

Defendant.

16

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO 42
U.S.C. § 406(b)
[DKT. NO. 28]

17
18

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to 42

19

U.S.C. § 406(b). Dkt. No. 28. Neither Plaintiff nor the Commissioner oppose the Motion.

20

Dkt. No. 29 (Commissioner’s Statement of Non-Opposition).

21

For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the Motion.

22

I.

23

In March 2019, Plaintiff Aida I. filed a complaint seeking judicial review of the

24

Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) denial of her application for

25

disability benefits. Aida I. v. Saul, No. 19-cv-0476-AJB-RNB, 2020 WL 434319, at *1

BACKGROUND

26
27

1

Leland Dudek is substituted for Kilolo Kijakazi pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

28
1

22-cv-1423-DEB

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

(S.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 19-cv-0476-AJBRNB, 2020 WL 1905356 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2020). The Court granted summary
judgment in Plaintiff’s favor, reversed the Commissioner’s decision, and remanded the
matter for further proceedings. Aida I. v. Saul, No. 19-cv-0476-AJB-RNB, 2020 WL
1905356, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2020). Pursuant to a joint motion, the Court awarded
Plaintiff $3,510.19 in attorney fees under the Equal Access for Justice Act (“EAJA”).
Aida I., 19-cv-0476-AJB-RNB, Dkt. No. 29.
The Commissioner denied Plaintiff’s application again on remand, and Plaintiff

9

filed this action for judicial review in September 2022. Dkt. No. 1. The Court reversed

10

the denial of benefits and remanded the case for further proceedings. Dkt. No. 24.

11

Pursuant to the parties’ joint motion, the Court awarded Plaintiff $6,300 in attorney fees

12

under the Equal Access for Justice Act (“EAJA”). Dkt. No. 27.

13

On remand, the Commissioner issued a decision favorable to Plaintiff and awarded

14

$100,393 in past-due disability benefits. Dkt. No. 28 at 5, Dkt. No. 28-3. The

15

Commissioner withheld $25,098.25 from the past-due benefits in the event Plaintiff’s

16

counsel requested payment of fees. Dkt. No. 28-4 at 2.

17

II.

18

Section 406(b) of the Social Security Act governs counsel’s request for fees. Under

19

that provision, attorneys may seek “a reasonable fee” for cases in which they have

20

successfully represented Social Security claimants. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). This fee

21

cannot exceed “25 percent of the total of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is

22

entitled . . . .” Id.; see also Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002) (“Within the

23

25 percent [statutory] boundary . . ., the attorney for the successful claimant must show

24

that the fee sought is reasonable for the services rendered.”).

LEGAL STANDARD

25

The Court “must ‘approach [§ 406(b)] fee determinations by looking first to the

26

contingent-fee agreement, then testing it for reasonableness.’” Crawford v. Astrue, 586

27

F.3d 1142, 1150 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (quoting Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808). In

28

evaluating the reasonableness of the fee award, the Court must consider “the character of
2

22-cv-1423-DEB

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

the representation and the results the representative achieved.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808
(citations omitted). The Court also “may properly reduce the fee for substandard
performance, delay, or benefits that are not in proportion to the time spent on the case.”
Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151 (citation omitted).
Finally, the Court must offset the § 406(b) fee award by any fees granted under the
EAJA. See Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 796 (“Fee awards may be made under both
prescriptions [i.e., the EAJA and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)], but the claimant’s attorney must
‘refun[d] to the claimant the amount of the smaller fee.’”) (citation omitted).
III.

10

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s counsel seeks $25,000 in attorney fees, offset by the $9,810.19 EAJA

11

fees, for a net award of $15,189.81. Dkt. No. 28 at 5. 2 The Court has conducted an

12

independent inquiry of the proposed fee award and finds it is reasonable and does not

13

constitute a windfall.

14

Plaintiff and counsel agreed to a contingent-fee agreement where counsel receives

15

25 percent of Plaintiff’s past-due benefits. Dkt. No. 28 at 8; Dkt. No. 28-1. Counsel is

16

requesting attorney fees of $25,000—the maximum allowed under the contingency

17

agreement and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Dkt. No. 28 at 5. Counsel’s representation resulted in

18

Plaintiff receiving a favorable decision and an award of past-due benefits. Counsel also

19

“assumed significant risk” in accepting this case, “including the risk that no benefits

20

would be awarded or that there would be a long court or administrative delay in

21

resolving” the case. Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1152; see also Moreno v. Berryhill, No. 13-

22

8492-PLA, 2018 WL 3490777, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 19, 2018) (explaining the “risk of

23

nonpayment inherent in a contingency agreement”).

24

Finally, the Court does not find any reduction is warranted. See Crawford, 586

25
26
27
28

Plaintiff’s counsel states the awarded EAJA fees amount to $9,810 despite (correctly)
identifying the two awards as $3,510.19 and $6,300. Dkt. No. 28 at 1. The Court will use
the $9,810.19 amount in line with its orders.
2

3

22-cv-1423-DEB

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

F.3d at 1151 (“The court may properly reduce the fee for substandard performance,
delay, or benefits that are not in proportion to the time spent on the case.”) (citation
omitted). There is no evidence of substandard performance or delay, and the requested
fees are “not excessively large in relation to the benefits achieved” or the “time spent on
the case.” Id.
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Motion for
Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) in the amount of $25,000 (Dkt. No. 28).
The Commissioner is DIRECTED to certify payment of a fee award of $25,000,

10

made payable to the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, Inc., CPC, out of Plaintiff’s

11

past-due benefits in accordance with agency policy.

12

The Court further ORDERS Plaintiff’s Counsel to refund Plaintiff $9,810.19 to

13

offset the EAJA fees previously awarded.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 7, 2025

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

4

22-cv-1423-DEB