1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 PHILLIP G., No. ED CV 21-598-E

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER RE: “MOTION FOR ATTORNEY

14 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting FEES PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. Commissioner of Social Security, 15 § 406(b)” Defendant. 16

17 18 On December 30, 2024, counsel for Plaintiff filed a “Motion for 19 Attorney Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b).” On December 31, 2024, 20 Defendant filed “Defendant’s Nonparty Statement, etc.” Counsel for 21 Plaintiff seeks attorneys fees in the amount of $22,456.50. 22 23 BACKGROUND 24 25 The Court previously remanded this matter to the Commissioner 26 for further administrative action. The Commissioner subsequently 27 awarded past-due benefits to Plaintiff, and the Commissioner withheld 1 Plaintiff’s counsel represented Plaintiff under a contingent fee 2 agreement providing for fees in the amount of 25 percent of past-due 3 benefits for work done before the Court. 4 5 APPLICABLE LAW 6 7 Section 406(b)(1) of Title 42 provides: 8 9 Whenever a court renders a judgment favorable to a 10 claimant 11 . . . who was represented before the court by an attorney, 12 the court may determine and allow as part of its judgment a 13 reasonable fee for such representation, not in excess of 14 25 percent of the total of the past-due benefits to which 15 the claimant is entitled. . . . In case of any such 16 judgment, no other fee may be payable . . . for such 17 representation except as provided in this paragraph. 42 18 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). 19 20 According to the United States Supreme Court, section 406(b) 21 22 does not displace contingent-fee agreements as the primary 23 means by which fees are set for successfully representing 24 Social Security benefits claimants in court. Rather, § 25 406(b) calls for court review of such arrangements as an 26 independent check, to assure that they yield reasonable 27 results in particular cases. Congress has provided one 1 that they provide for fees exceeding 25 percent of the 2 past-due benefits. Within this 25 percent boundary . . . 3 the attorney for the successful claimant must show that the 4 fee sought is reasonable for the services rendered. 5 Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002) (citations 6 omitted) (“Gisbrecht”). 7 8 The hours spent by counsel representing the claimant and 9 counsel’s “normal hourly billing charge for noncontingent-fee cases” 10 may aid “the court’s assessment of the reasonableness of the fee 11 yielded by the fee agreement.” Id. at 808. The Court appropriately 12 may reduce counsel’s recovery 13 14 based on the character of the representation and the 15 results the representative achieved. If the attorney is 16 responsible for delay, for example, a reduction is in order 17 so that the attorney will not profit from the accumulation 18 of benefits during the pendency of the case in court. If 19 the benefits are large in comparison to the amount of time 20 counsel spent on the case, a downward adjustment is 21 similarly in order. 22 23 Id. (citations omitted). 24 25 DISCUSSION 26 27 The fee sought does not exceed the agreed-upon 25 percent of 1 |)}character of the representation” nor “the results the representative 2 |lachieved” suggest the unreasonableness of the fee sought. 3 || Plaintiff’s counsel was not responsible for any significant delay in 4 securing Plaintiff’s benefits. Because the present case is legally 5 |} indistinguishable from Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 6 2009), this Court is unable to find that a comparison of the benefits 7 secured and the time Plaintiff’s counsel spent before the Court 8 || suggests the unreasgonableness of the fee sought. Therefore, the 9 |} Court concludes that “the fee sought is reasonable for the services 10 | rendered,” within the meaning of Gisbrecht. 11 12 ORDER 13 14 A section 406(b) fee is allowed in the gross amount of 15 $22,456.50. Counsel shall reimburse Plaintiff the sum of $3,753.79, 16 previously paid by the Government under the Equal Access to Justice 17 18 19 DATED: February 4, 2025. 20

LZEEEAZA

22 CHARLES F. EICK □□□□ 53 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24 25 26 27 28