1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AIDA I., Case No.: 22-cv-1423-DEB

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

13 v. COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR

ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO 42

14 LELAND DUDEK, Acting Commissioner U.S.C. § 406(b) of Social Security,1 15 Defendant. [DKT. NO. 28] 16

17 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 406(b). Dkt. No. 28. Neither Plaintiff nor the Commissioner oppose the Motion. 20 Dkt. No. 29 (Commissioner’s Statement of Non-Opposition). 21 For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 In March 2019, Plaintiff Aida I. filed a complaint seeking judicial review of the 24 Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) denial of her application for 25 disability benefits. Aida I. v. Saul, No. 19-cv-0476-AJB-RNB, 2020 WL 434319, at *1 26

27 1 Leland Dudek is substituted for Kilolo Kijakazi pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

28 1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 19-cv-0476-AJB- 2 RNB, 2020 WL 1905356 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2020). The Court granted summary 3 judgment in Plaintiff’s favor, reversed the Commissioner’s decision, and remanded the 4 matter for further proceedings. Aida I. v. Saul, No. 19-cv-0476-AJB-RNB, 2020 WL 5 1905356, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2020). Pursuant to a joint motion, the Court awarded 6 Plaintiff $3,510.19 in attorney fees under the Equal Access for Justice Act (“EAJA”). 7 Aida I., 19-cv-0476-AJB-RNB, Dkt. No. 29. 8 The Commissioner denied Plaintiff’s application again on remand, and Plaintiff 9 filed this action for judicial review in September 2022. Dkt. No. 1. The Court reversed 10 the denial of benefits and remanded the case for further proceedings. Dkt. No. 24. 11 Pursuant to the parties’ joint motion, the Court awarded Plaintiff $6,300 in attorney fees 12 under the Equal Access for Justice Act (“EAJA”). Dkt. No. 27. 13 On remand, the Commissioner issued a decision favorable to Plaintiff and awarded 14 $100,393 in past-due disability benefits. Dkt. No. 28 at 5, Dkt. No. 28-3. The 15 Commissioner withheld $25,098.25 from the past-due benefits in the event Plaintiff’s 16 counsel requested payment of fees. Dkt. No. 28-4 at 2. 17 II. LEGAL STANDARD 18 Section 406(b) of the Social Security Act governs counsel’s request for fees. Under 19 that provision, attorneys may seek “a reasonable fee” for cases in which they have 20 successfully represented Social Security claimants. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). This fee 21 cannot exceed “25 percent of the total of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is 22 entitled . . . .” Id.; see also Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002) (“Within the 23 25 percent [statutory] boundary . . ., the attorney for the successful claimant must show 24 that the fee sought is reasonable for the services rendered.”). 25 The Court “must ‘approach [§ 406(b)] fee determinations by looking first to the 26 contingent-fee agreement, then testing it for reasonableness.’” Crawford v. Astrue, 586 27 F.3d 1142, 1150 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (quoting Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808). In 28 evaluating the reasonableness of the fee award, the Court must consider “the character of 1 the representation and the results the representative achieved.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808 2 (citations omitted). The Court also “may properly reduce the fee for substandard 3 performance, delay, or benefits that are not in proportion to the time spent on the case.” 4 Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151 (citation omitted). 5 Finally, the Court must offset the § 406(b) fee award by any fees granted under the 6 EAJA. See Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 796 (“Fee awards may be made under both 7 prescriptions [i.e., the EAJA and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)], but the claimant’s attorney must 8 ‘refun[d] to the claimant the amount of the smaller fee.’”) (citation omitted). 9

III. DISCUSSION

10 Plaintiff’s counsel seeks $25,000 in attorney fees, offset by the $9,810.19 EAJA 11 fees, for a net award of $15,189.81. Dkt. No. 28 at 5.2 The Court has conducted an 12 independent inquiry of the proposed fee award and finds it is reasonable and does not 13 constitute a windfall. 14 Plaintiff and counsel agreed to a contingent-fee agreement where counsel receives 15 25 percent of Plaintiff’s past-due benefits. Dkt. No. 28 at 8; Dkt. No. 28-1. Counsel is 16 requesting attorney fees of $25,000—the maximum allowed under the contingency 17 agreement and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Dkt. No. 28 at 5. Counsel’s representation resulted in 18 Plaintiff receiving a favorable decision and an award of past-due benefits. Counsel also 19 “assumed significant risk” in accepting this case, “including the risk that no benefits 20 would be awarded or that there would be a long court or administrative delay in 21 resolving” the case. Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1152; see also Moreno v. Berryhill, No. 13- 22 8492-PLA, 2018 WL 3490777, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 19, 2018) (explaining the “risk of 23 nonpayment inherent in a contingency agreement”). 24 Finally, the Court does not find any reduction is warranted. See Crawford, 586 25

26 2 Plaintiff’s counsel states the awarded EAJA fees amount to $9,810 despite (correctly) 27 identifying the two awards as $3,510.19 and $6,300. Dkt. No. 28 at 1. The Court will use the $9,810.19 amount in line with its orders. 28 at 1151 (“The court may properly reduce the fee for substandard performance, 2 delay, or benefits that are not in proportion to the time spent on the case.”) (citation 3 omitted). There is no evidence of substandard performance or delay, and the requested 4 || fees are “not excessively large in relation to the benefits achieved” or the “time spent on > |) the case.” Id. 6 IV. CONCLUSION 7 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Counsel’s Motion for 8 |! Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) in the amount of $25,000 (Dkt. No. 28). ? The Commissioner is DIRECTED to certify payment of a fee award of $25,000, 10 made payable to the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, Inc., CPC, out of □□□□□□□□□□□ past-due benefits in accordance with agency policy. 12 The Court further ORDERS Plaintiffs Counsel to refund Plaintiff $9,810.19 to 13 || offset the EAJA fees previously awarded. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 || Dated: March 7, 2025 — Daud ao Honorable Daniel E. Butcher V7 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28