From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Linthicum v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Jan 31, 2018
CASE NO. 3:16-cv-05048 JRC (W.D. Wash. Jan. 31, 2018)

Opinion

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-05048 JRC

01-31-2018

BARBARA S. LINTHICUM, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.


ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Fed. R. Civ. P. 73 and Local Magistrate Judge Rule MJR 13 (see also Notice of Initial Assignment to a U.S. Magistrate Judge and Consent Form, Dkt. 5; Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge, Dkt. 6). This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (see Dkt. 22). Defendant has no objection to plaintiff's motion. See Dkt. 24.

The Court may allow a reasonable fee for an attorney who represented a Social Security Title II claimant before the Court and obtained a favorable judgment, as long as such fee is not in excess of 25 percent of the total of past-due benefits. See 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1); Grisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002). When a contingency agreement applies, the Court will look first to such agreement and will conduct an independent review to assure the reasonableness of the fee requested, taking into consideration the character of the representation and results achieved. See Grisbrecht, supra, 535 U.S. at 807, 808 (footnote omitted) (citations omitted). Although the fee agreement is the primary means for determining the fee, the Court will adjust the fee downward if substandard representation was provided, if the attorney caused excessive delay, or if a windfall would result from the requested fee. See Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1151 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Grisbrecht, supra, 535 U.S. at 808).

Here, the representation was standard, at least, and the results achieved excellent (see Dkt. 23, Attachment 3). See Grisbrecht, supra, 535 U.S. at 808. Following remand from this Court for further consideration (see Dkt. 16), plaintiff was awarded benefits. There has not been excessive delay and no windfall will result from the requested fee.

Plaintiff's total back payment was $78,767.00 (see Dkt. 23, Attachment 3, p. 3). The Social Security Administration has withheld $19,691.75 for payment of attorney fees. Plaintiff has moved for a net attorney's fee of $11,477.60 (see Motion, Dkt. 22, p. 1), and the Court has considered plaintiff's requested gross attorney's fee of $16,500.00 (see id.) and the EAJA award received by plaintiff's attorney in the amount of $5,022.40. Parish v. Comm'r. Soc. Sec. Admin., 698 F.3d 1215, 1221 (9th Cir. 2012).

Based on plaintiff's unopposed motion and supporting documents (see Dkts. 22, 23 Attachments 1, 2, 3, 4), it is hereby ORDERED that attorney's fees in the amount of $16,500.00 be awarded to plaintiff's attorney pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). The Social Security Administration is to release the remaining backpay (the previously awarded EAJA fees in the amount of $5,022.40, and the remaining attorney fees withheld by the Administration) to plaintiff. The net fee of $11,477.60, minus any processing fees allowed by statute should be mailed to Francisco Rodriguez, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 31844, Seattle, WA 98103.

Dated this 31st day of January, 2018.

/s/_________

J. Richard Creatura

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Linthicum v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Jan 31, 2018
CASE NO. 3:16-cv-05048 JRC (W.D. Wash. Jan. 31, 2018)
Case details for

Linthicum v. Berryhill

Case Details

Full title:BARBARA S. LINTHICUM, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

Date published: Jan 31, 2018

Citations

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-05048 JRC (W.D. Wash. Jan. 31, 2018)