Wall v. Colvin

Filing 26

ORDER granting 25 Unopposed Motion for 406(b) Attorney Fees signed 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

BLAYDEN D. WALL,

11
12

Plaintiff,
v.

14

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration,

15

CASE NO. 15-cv-05281 JRC
ORDER GRANTING
UNOPPOSED 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. 3; Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge, Dkt. 7).
19
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to
20
42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (see Dkt. 25).
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 UNOPPOSED 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. Following remand from this
11 Court for further consideration (see Dkt. 21), plaintiff was awarded benefits. There has not been
12 excessive delay and no windfall will result from the requested fee.
13

Plaintiff’s total back payment was $143,127.00 (see id., p. 3). Plaintiff has moved for a

14 net attorney’s fee of $22,981.75 (see Memorandum, Dkt. 25, Attachment 2, p. 4), and the Court
15 has considered plaintiff’s gross attorneys’ fees of $35,781.75, the $6,000 already received by
16 plaintiff’s other attorney for work before the administration (under § 406(a)), and the EAJA
17 award received by plaintiff’s attorney being deducted from this gross award in the amount of
18 $6,800.00. Parish v. Comm’r. Soc. Sec. Admin., 698 F.3d 1215, 1221 (9th Cir. 2012).
19

Based on plaintiff’s unopposed motion and supporting documents (see Dkt. 25,

20 Attachments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), it is hereby ORDERED that attorney’s fees in the amount of
21 $29,781.75 be awarded to plaintiff’s attorney pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). After reduction of
22 the EAJA fee already awarded to plaintiff’s attorney in the amount of $6,800.00 from this 406(b)
23 award, the Social Security Administration shall pay $22,981.75 directly to plaintiff’s attorney,
24
ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. §
406(B) - 2

1 David M. Church, Esq. The Social Security Administration is to release the remaining funds
2 (representing the previously awarded EAJA fees) in the amount of $6,800.00 to plaintiff.
3

Dated this 24th day of July, 2017.

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 UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. §
406(B) - 3