Matthew H. v. Leland Dudek

Matthew H. · United States District Court for the Northern District of California · April 7, 2025 · No. 21-cv-07897-JSC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) following a successful appeal and remand of the denial of Social Security disability benefits. The court approved $10,143.50 in fees, finding the amount reasonable under the contingency-fee agreement and applicable case law, and ordered counsel to refund $6,500 in previously awarded EAJA fees to the plaintiff.

Holdings

  1. A court may approve a contingency-fee agreement under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) only after independently reviewing the requested fee for reasonableness; the court approved $10,143.50 as reasonable because the agreement was within the 25-percent statutory ceiling, counsel achieved a favorable remand and benefits award, there was no substandard or deliberately dilatory representation, the fee was not excessive in relation to the benefits, and counsel assumed substantial risk.
  2. An award of § 406(b) attorney's fees must be offset by any EAJA fee award, and counsel must refund the previously awarded $6,500.00 in EAJA fees to Plaintiff.
  3. The court declined to award the additional $715.00 because counsel conceded that she was not entitled to those fees; the SSA was directed to release the remaining amount to Plaintiff.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the requested attorney's fee under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) was reasonable and within the statutory 25-percent limitation.
  2. Whether the § 406(b) award had to be offset by the previously awarded EAJA fees.
  3. Whether counsel's requested reduction for scheduling delays should be treated as a refund or excluded from the fee award.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (6)

  • Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1144 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc)(followed)
  • Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 796, 807-08 (2002)(followed)
  • Parrish v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 698 F.3d 1215, 1218 (9th Cir. 2012)(followed)
  • James F. v. King, 2025 WL 510432 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2025)(followed)
  • Mirto v. Colvin, No. 23-CV-03198-SVK, 2024 WL 5250081 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2024)(followed)
  • Barton v. Colvin, No. 21-CV-9662-RMI, 2024 WL 5173257 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2024)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…