Opinion
CASE NO. 12-cv-05415 JRC
05-22-2013
KATHY A. DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY'S FEES PURSUANT
TO 42 U.S.C. § 406(B)
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Fed. R. Civ. P. 73 and Local Magistrate Judge Rule MJR 13 (see also Notice of Initial Assignment to a U.S. Magistrate Judge and Consent Form, ECF No. 5; Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge, ECF No. 6). This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (see ECF No. 28). Defendant has no objection to plaintiff's request (see ECF No. 29).
The Court may allow a reasonable fee for an attorney who represented a Social Security Title II claimant before the Court and obtained a favorable judgment, as long as such fee is not in excess of 25 percent of the total of past-due benefits. See 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1); Grisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002). When a contingency agreement applies, the Court will look first to such agreement and will conduct an independent review to assure the reasonableness of the fee requested, taking into consideration the character of the representation and results achieved. See Grisbrecht, supra, 535 U.S. at 807, 808 (footnote omitted) (citations omitted). Although the fee agreement is the primary means for determining the fee, the Court will adjust the fee downward if substandard representation was provided, if the attorney caused excessive delay, or if a windfall would result from the requested fee. See Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1151 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Grisbrecht, supra, 535 U.S. at 808).
Here, the representation was standard, at least, and the results achieved excellent (see ECF No. 28, Attachments 2, 3). See Grisbrecht, supra, 535 U.S. at 808. Defendant stipulated to remand the matter subsequent to plaintiff's filing of her Opening Brief, and the Appeals Council, following remand, awarded benefits to plaintiff without remanding the case to an Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings.
Plaintiff's total back payment was $26,930.32 (see id., Attachment 3). Plaintiff has moved for a net attorney's fee of $3,000.00 (see Motion, ECF No. 28, pp. 3-4), and the Court has considered plaintiff's gross attorney's fee of $5,034.75 (plus $19.20 in expenses); the EAJA award received by plaintiff's attorney in the amount of $2,053.95; and the $3,000 offset to that EAJA award that was seized pursuant to the Department of the Treasury's Offset program (see id.; see also ECF No. 28, Attachments 4, 5). See 31 U.S.C. §§ 3711(a), 3716(a); Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 2524, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 4763 at ***6-***7 (2010).
Based on plaintiff's motion and supporting documents (see ECF Nos. 28, 28-1, 28-2, 28-3, 28-4, 28-5), and with no objection from defendant (ECF No. 29), it is hereby ORDERED that attorney's fees in the amount of $3,000 be awarded to plaintiff's attorney pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b).
______________
J. Richard Creatura
United States Magistrate Judge