Gisbrecht

ORDER

Jan. 22, 2001

The memorandum disposition filed November 27, 2000, with modifications, is re-designated as an authored Opinion by Judge Graber.

OPINION

These cases were consolidated for oral argument. In each case, a district court reversed a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, and Plaintiffs sought attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406 (b)(1)(A). 1 The district courts awarded attorney fees, but in lesser amounts than Plaintiffs had requested. Plaintiffs appeal. We review for abuse of discretion, Widrig v. Apfel, 140 F.3d 1207, 1209 (9th Cir.1998), and affirm.

I. ARGUMENTS COMMON TO ALL FOUR CASES

Plaintiffs argue on several grounds that the district courts abused their discretion. Their primary arguments — concerning the hourly lodestar rate and the requested enhancement based on the contingent nature of the fee arrangement — pertain to all four cases, with minor differences as noted.

This court follows the “lodestar” method of calculating fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406 (b)(1)(A). Allen v. Shalala, 48 F.3d 456, 458 (9th Cir.1995); Starr v. Bowen, 831 F.2d 872, 874 (9th Cir.1987). 2 The *1198 lodestar method requires a court to determine a…