Angelonis v. Colvin

Filing 28

ORDER granting 27 Unopposed 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
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

9
10
11

STEVEN ROBERT ANGELONIS,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16
17

v.
CAROLYN W COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration,

CASE NO. 14-cv-05863 JRC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT
TO 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)

Defendant.

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Fed. R. Civ. P. 73 and Local

18 Magistrate Judge Rule MJR 13 (see also Notice of Initial Assignment to a U.S. Magistrate Judge
19 and Consent Form, Dkt. 5; Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge, Dkt. 6).
20 This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to
21 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (see Dkt. 27).
22

The Court may allow a reasonable fee for an attorney who represented a Social Security

23 Title II claimant before the Court and obtained a favorable judgment, as long as such fee is not in
24
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. §
406(B) - 1

1 excess of 25 percent of the total of past-due benefits. See 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1); Grisbrecht v.
2 Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002). When a contingency agreement applies, the Court will look first
3 to such agreement and will conduct an independent review to assure the reasonableness of the
4 fee requested, taking into consideration the character of the representation and results achieved.
5 See Grisbrecht, supra, 535 U.S. at 807, 808 (footnote omitted) (citations omitted). Although the
6 fee agreement is the primary means for determining the fee, the Court will adjust the fee
7 downward if substandard representation was provided, if the attorney caused excessive delay, or
8 if a windfall would result from the requested fee. See Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1151
9 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Grisbrecht, supra, 535 U.S. at 808).
10

Here, the representation was standard, at least, and the results achieved excellent (see

11 Dkt. 27, p. 1, fn. 1). See Grisbrecht, supra, 535 U.S. at 808. This Court remanded the case for
12 further proceedings (Dkt. 23). Following a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge issued a fully
13 favorable decision (see Dkt. 27, p. 2). There has not been excessive delay and no windfall will
14 result from the requested fee.
15

Plaintiff’s total back payment was $33,018 (see Dkt. 27, p. 2, fn. 1). Plaintiff has moved

16 for a net attorney’s fee of $2,115.56 (see Motion, Dkt. 27, p. 1), and the Court has considered
17 plaintiff’s gross attorney’s fee of $8,245.50 (25% of back benefits) and the EAJA award received
18 by plaintiff’s attorney in the amount of $6,138.94 (Dkt. 26). Parish v. Comm’r. Soc. Sec.
19 Admin., 698 F.3d 1215, 1221 (9th Cir. 2012).
20

Based on plaintiff’s unopposed motion (see Dkt. 27), it is hereby ORDERED that

21 attorney’s fees in the amount of $2,115.56, minus any applicable processing fee, be awarded to
22 plaintiff’s attorney pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). This amount should be released to plaintiff’s
23
24
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. §
406(B) - 2

1 attorney, Rosemary B. Schurman, at 8123 NE 115 Way, Kirkland, WA 98034 or via automatic
2 deposit.
3

Dated this 24th day of August, 2016.

A

4
5

J. Richard Creatura
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
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