Kijakazi

Rodriguez Soto v. Kijakazi

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaOctober 7, 20243:23-cv-00636California1,904 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

23 On April 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint, seeking judicial review of the 24 Commissioner’s decision to deny her claim for benefits. (Doc. No. 1.) Thereafter, Plaintiff 25 filed a First Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 8.) The Court issued a Scheduling Order 26 setting a briefing schedule for judicial review of the Commissioner’s Final Decision. (Doc. 27 28 No. 10.) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed her motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 13), to which the Commissioner responded, (Doc. No. 15) Magistrate Judge Steve B. Chu filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on July 22, 2024, recommending that the Commissioner’s decision be vacated, and the action be remanded for further administrative proceedings. (Doc. No. 16.) Upon review of the R&R and receiving no objections from the parties, the Court adopted Magistrate Judge Chu’s R&R in its entirety. (Doc. No. 17.) The parties now move for an award of $6,971.67 in fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), and no costs. (Doc. No. 20.) This amount represents compensation for all legal services rendered on behalf of Plaintiff by counsel in connection with this action.…

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.