(SS) Rush v. Commissioner of Social Security

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 3, 20252:21-cv-01665California1,129 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JASON LEE RUSH, No. 2:21-cv-1665 AC Plaintiff, v. ORDER COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

15 Defendant. 16 Plaintiff sought judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), denying his application benefits under the Social Security Act (“the Act”). On June 9, 2022, the court reversed and remanded the action to the Commissioner, ruling in favor of the plaintiff. ECF No. 16. Now pending before the court is plaintiff’s November 21, 2024 motion for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). ECF No. 22. Defendant responded to the fee request. ECF No. 23. For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be granted. I. REASONABLENESS OF FEE REQUEST At the outset of the representation, plaintiff and his counsel entered into a contingent-fee agreement. ECF No. 22-3. Pursuant to that agreement plaintiff’s counsel now seeks attorney’s fees in the…

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.