Randolph v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaSeptember 10, 20243:22-cv-00485California1,238 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

Background 25 On April 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking review of the Commissioner 26 of Social Security’s decision to deny her supplemental security income. (Dkt. No. 1.) 27 After Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, on October 6, 2022, the parties filed 28 a joint motion to remand the matter for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which the Court granted. (Dkt. Nos. 17, 18.) On November 14, 2022, the Court awarded attorney’s fees to Plaintiff’s counsel under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) in the amount of $3,608.63 pursuant to the parties’ joint motion. (Dkt. Nos. 19, 20.) On remand and consideration of Plaintiff’s claim, around May 16, 2024, Plaintiff was awarded monthly Supplemental Security Income in the amount of $1,182.94 starting June 2024 and $59,441.96 in past-due benefits. (Dkt. No. 23-2.) On July 17, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel filed the instant motion pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) seeking $14,860.46 in attorney’s fees representing 25% of the past-due benefits. (Dkt. No. 23.) Defendant filed a response taking no position in the amount that…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.