(SS) Tinoco v. Commissioner of Social Security

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 1, 20231:21-cv-00278California1,311 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARGARET ELIZABETH TINOCO, Case No. 1:21-cv-00278-CBD

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

AUTHORIZATION OF ATTORNEY’S FEES

13 v. PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL (Doc. 25) SECURITY,

Defendant. 17 Pending before the Court is the motion of Jonathan O. Peña (“Counsel”) of Peña & Bromberg, PC, attorney for Margaret Elizabeth Tinoco (“Plaintiff”), for authorization of attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), filed August 16, 2023, and the response of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant” or “the Commissioner”). (Docs. 25, 27). For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be granted.1 Background On February 17, 2021, Plaintiff and Counsel entered into a contingency fee agreement. (Doc. 25-2). The parties agreed to a attorney’s fee equal to 25% of the past-due benefits awarded, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), less any fees received under the Equal Access to Justice Act

1 Both…

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.