Linthicum v. Colvin
Filing
25
ORDER granting 22 Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) 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
BARBARA S. LINTHICUM,
11
12
Plaintiff,
v.
14
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration,
15
CASE NO. 3:16-cv-05048 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. 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. 22). Defendant has no objection to plaintiff’s motion. See Dkt. 24.
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. 23, Attachment 3). See Grisbrecht, supra, 535 U.S. at 808. Following remand from this
11 Court for further consideration (see Dkt. 16), 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 $78,767.00 (see Dkt. 23, Attachment 3, p. 3). The
14 Social Security Administration has withheld $19,691.75 for payment of attorney fees. Plaintiff
15 has moved for a net attorney’s fee of $11,477.60 (see Motion, Dkt. 22, p. 1), and the Court has
16 considered plaintiff’s requested gross attorney’s fee of $16,500.00 (see id.) and the EAJA award
17 received by plaintiff’s attorney in the amount of $5,022.40. Parish v. Comm’r. Soc. Sec. Admin.,
18 698 F.3d 1215, 1221 (9th Cir. 2012).
19
Based on plaintiff’s unopposed motion and supporting documents (see Dkts. 22, 23
20 Attachments 1, 2, 3, 4), it is hereby ORDERED that attorney’s fees in the amount of $16,500.00
21 be awarded to plaintiff’s attorney pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). The Social Security
22 Administration is to release the remaining backpay (the previously awarded EAJA fees in the
23 amount of $5,022.40, and the remaining attorney fees withheld by the Administration) to
24
ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. §
406(B) - 2
1 plaintiff. The net fee of $11,477.60, minus any processing fees allowed by statute should be
2 mailed to Francisco Rodriguez, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 31844, Seattle, WA 98103.
3
Dated this 31st day of January, 2018.
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
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?