Grunseich

Grunseich v. Barnhart

Good Law
439 F. Supp. 2d 1032·2006 WL 2048324·2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73125
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJune 8, 2006CV 03-6120 RCCalifornia1,165 words

Opinion

Opinion

Chapman, J.

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 406 (b)

On May 9, 2006, plaintiff Aimee Gruns-eich filed a motion for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406 (b), with a supporting memorandum of points and authorities and the supporting declaration of her counsel, Young Cho, with exhibits. On May 25, 2006, defendant filed her response to plaintiffs motion. Plaintiff did not file a reply. This motion is decided in Chambers without oral argument, pursuant to Local Rule 7-15.

DISCUSSION

“[Section] 406(b) [of Title 42 U.S.C.] does 'not displace contingent-fee agreements as the primary means by which fees are set for successfully representing Social Security benefits claimants in court.” Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807 , 122 S.Ct. 1817, 1828 , 152 L.Ed.2d 996 (2002). Therefore, in assessing plaintiffs request for attorney’s fees under Section 406(b), this Court must first determine whether a fee agreement has been' executed between the plaintiff and her attorney, and, if so, whether such agreement is enforceable. Id.; Rodriquez v. Bowen, 865 F.2d 739, 746 (6th Cir.1989) (en banc). “Agreements are unenforceable to the extent…

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.