Shipe, Jr. v. Colvin
Filing
27
ORDER granting 25 Motion for Attorneys Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) by Judge J Richard Creatura.(SH)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
8
9
10
ROBERT WILLIAM SHIPE, Jr.,
11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
14
CAROLYN W COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration,
15
CASE NO. 13-cv-05912 JRC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT
TO 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)
Defendant.
13
16
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Fed. R. Civ. P. 73 and Local
17
Magistrate Judge Rule MJR 13 (see also Notice of Initial Assignment to a U.S. Magistrate Judge
18
and Consent Form, Dkt. 5; Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge, Dkt. 6).
19
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
20
406(b) (see Dkt. 25). Defendant has no objection to plaintiff’s request (see Dkt. 26).
21
The Court may allow a reasonable fee for an attorney who represented a Social Security
22
Title II claimant before the Court and obtained a favorable judgment, as long as such fee is not in
23
excess of 25 percent of the total of past-due benefits. See 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1); Grisbrecht v.
24
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. §
406(B) - 1
1 Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002). When a contingency agreement applies, the Court will look first
2 to such agreement and will conduct an independent review to assure the reasonableness of the
3 fee requested, taking into consideration the character of the representation and results achieved.
4 See Grisbrecht, supra, 535 U.S. at 807, 808 (footnote omitted) (citations omitted). Although the
5 fee agreement is the primary means for determining the fee, the Court will adjust the fee
6 downward if substandard representation was provided, if the attorney caused excessive delay, or
7 if a windfall would result from the requested fee. See Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1151
8 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Grisbrecht, supra, 535 U.S. at 808).
9
Here, the representation was standard, at least, and the results achieved excellent (see
10 Dkt. 25, Attachment 3). See Grisbrecht, supra, 535 U.S. at 808. Defendant stipulated to remand
11 the matter subsequent to plaintiff’s filing of her Opening Brief, and after plaintiff’s second
12 hearing, the ALJ awarded benefits to plaintiff (Dkt. 25, Attachment 1, p. 1). There has not been
13 excessive delay and no windfall will result from the requested fee.
14
Plaintiff’s total back payment was $67,696.00 (see id., Attachment 3). Plaintiff has
15 moved for a net attorney’s fee of $10,924.00 (see Motion, Dkt. 25, p. 1), and the Court has
16 considered plaintiff’s gross attorney’s fee of $16,924.00 (25% of past due benefits); the
17 administrative attorney’s fee of $6,000.00; and the EAJA award received by plaintiff’s attorney
18 in the amount of $5,289.07 that was garnished pursuant to the Department of the Treasury’s
19 Offset program (see Dkt. 25, Attachment 7). See 31 U.S.C. §§ 3711(a), 3716(a); Astrue v. Ratliff,
20 560 U.S.C. 586, 589, 593, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 2524, 2527 (2010); Parish v. Comm’r. Soc. Sec.
21 Admin., 698 F.3d 1215, 1221 (9th Cir. 2012).
22
Based on plaintiff’s motion and supporting documents (see Dkt. 25 and Attachments 1-
23 7), and with no objection from defendant (Dkt. 26), it is hereby ORDERED that attorney’s fees
24
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. §
406(B) - 2
1 in the amount of $10,924.00 be awarded to plaintiff’s attorney pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b).
2 When issuing the 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) check for payment to plaintiff’s attorney herein, Social
3 Security is directed to send to plaintiff’s attorney $10,924.00, minus any applicable processing
4 fees as allowed by statute.
5
Dated this 22nd day of July, 2016.
A
6
7
J. Richard Creatura
United States Magistrate Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. §
406(B) - 3
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?