(SS) Hase v. Commissioner of Social Security

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 16, 20202:16-cv-02522California1,498 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARVEL SCOTT HASE, No. 2:16-cv-2522-KJN 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (ECF No. 26) 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

15 Defendant. 16 17 Presently pending before the court is counsel for plaintiff Jesse Kaplan’s motion for 18 attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), filed on August 13, 2020. (ECF No. 26.)1 19 Plaintiff’s counsel seeks an award of $11,330 (16.3% of plaintiff’s past due benefits of $69,320 as 20 calculated by the Commissioner of Social Security [“Commissioner”].) The Commissioner did 21 file a brief response to counsel’s motion (ECF No. 29), and did not alert the court to any issues in 22 its role as trustee. 23 The court grants the motion for attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). 24 /// 25 /// 26

27 1 This case was initially referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(15), and both parties voluntarily consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF Nos. 28 4, 5, 7.) 1 BACKGROUND 2 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.