(SS)Martinez

I. INTRODUCTION

13 On January 5, 2021, Young Cho (“Counsel”), counsel for Plaintiff Steven Anthony Martinez (“Plaintiff”), filed a motion for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1383(d)(2)(B). (Doc. 23.) On January 6, 2021, the Court issued a minute order requiring Plaintiff and the Commissioner to file a response in opposition or statement of non-opposition to Counsel’s motion, if any, by no later than February 1, 2021. (Doc. 24.) On February 1, 2021, the Commissioner filed a response in his role “resembling that of a trustee” for Plaintiff, acknowledging that he was not a party to the contingent-fee agreement between Plaintiff and Counsel and therefore “not in a position to either assent or object to the [] fees that Counsel seeks from Plaintiff’s past-due benefits,” but nevertheless taking “no position on the reasonableness of the request.” (See Doc. 27 at 2, 5.) The Commissioner does object, however, to Counsel’s request that the Court award a “net fee.” (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion by the deadline. For the reasons set forth below, Counsel’s motion for an award…