Do

Do v. Saul

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaFebruary 20, 20243:20-cv-02696California1,158 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DAVID D., Case No. 3:20-cv-02696-JSC

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR

9 v. ATTORNEY’S FEES

10 MARTIN O’MALLEY, Re: Dkt. No. 25 Defendant. 11

12 13 Plaintiff’s counsel, Katherine Siegfried, moves for attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 14 406(b) for representing Plaintiff in his successful appeal of the Commissioner of the Social 15 Security Administration’s denial of social security disability benefits. (Dkt. No. 34.1) After careful 16 consideration of Plaintiff’s motion and the relevant legal authority, the Court determines oral 17 argument is unnecessary, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and GRANTS the motion for attorney’s 18 fees pursuant to Section 406(b). 19 BACKGROUND 20 This case stems from Plaintiff’s appeal of the Social Security Administration’s denial of 21 social security benefits for a combination of physical impairments, including: back pain, neck 22 pain, and numbness and weakness in his…

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.