Crooks

Crooks v. Saul

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMay 10, 20223:20-cv-02001California1,450 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 LEROY CROOKS, Case No. 20-cv-02001-TSH

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

v. ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Re: Dkt. No. 25 11 Defendant. 12 I. INTRODUCTION After Plaintiff Leroy Crooks 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 his favor. Crooks’s attorney, Katherine R. Siegfried, now seeks $15,000 in attorney’s fees under section 206(b) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). ECF No. 25. The government has not filed a response. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion. II. BACKGROUND Crooks brought this action for judicial review under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On January 27, 2021, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation…

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.