Matos

Matos v. Saul

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 14, 20213:19-cv-02505California1,323 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 HILDA MATOS, Case No. 19-cv-02505-TSH

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

v. ATTORNEY’S FEES

ANDREW M. SAUL, Re: Dkt. No. 24 Defendant.

12 I. INTRODUCTION After Plaintiff Hilda Matos brought this action for review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision to deny benefits, the Court remanded the case and the Commissioner issued a decision in her favor. Matos’s attorney, Katherine R. Siegfried, now seeks $10,980.88 in attorney’s fees under section 206(b) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). ECF No. 24. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion. II. BACKGROUND Matos brought this action for judicial review under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On March 23, 2020, the Court granted her summary judgment motion and remanded for further proceedings. ECF No. 16. The Court subsequently granted…

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.