Pock

Pock v. Saul

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNovember 29, 20223:19-cv-01354-JSCCalifornia699 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 JAMES P., Case No. 19-cv-01354-JSC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

v. ATTORNEY’S FEES WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

ANDREW SAUL, Re: Dkt. No. 31 Defendant.

14 Plaintiff’s counsel, Harvey Sackett, moves for attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) for representing Plaintiff in his successful appeal of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s denial of social security disability benefits. (Dkt. No. 31.) The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the reasons set forth below. Under Section 406(b), a court must serve “as an independent check” of contingency fee agreements “to assure that they yield reasonable results.” Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002). The court’s review of a fee agreement is based on the character of the representation and the results achieved, see Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808, and can include analyzing: whether counsel provided substandard representation; any dilatory…

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.