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

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

Plaintiff,

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR

v. ATTORNEY’S FEES

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

12 Plaintiff’s counsel, Katherine Siegfried, 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. 34.1) After careful consideration of Plaintiff’s motion and the relevant legal authority, the Court determines oral argument is unnecessary, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and GRANTS the motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 406(b). BACKGROUND This case stems from Plaintiff’s appeal of the Social Security Administration’s denial of social security benefits for a combination of physical impairments, including: back pain, neck 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.