(SS)Streeter

(SS)Streeter v. Commissioner of Social Security

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 7, 20211:18-cv-01276California2,278 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. INTRODUCTION

13 On July 19, 2021, Brian C. Shapiro (“Counsel”), counsel for Plaintiff Connie Streeter (“Plaintiff”), filed a motion for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1383(d)(2)(B). (Doc. 25.) On July 20, 2021, the Court issued a minute order requiring Plaintiff and the Acting Commissioner to file a response in opposition or statement of non-opposition to Counsel’s motion, if any, by no later than August 16, 2021. (Doc. 26.) On August 17, 2021, the Acting Commissioner filed a response in her role “resembling that of a trustee” for Plaintiff, acknowledging that she 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. 28 at 2, 4.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion by the deadline. For the reasons set forth below, Counsel’s motion for an award of attorney’s fees is granted in the amount of $10,875.00, subject to an offset of $4,116.00 in fees…

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.