From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pace v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Jan 31, 2018
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-05419 JRC (W.D. Wash. Jan. 31, 2018)

Opinion

CASE NO. 3:15-cv-05419 JRC

01-31-2018

ANGELA PACE, 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. 23. 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 a stipulated remand from this Court for further consideration (see Dkt. 17), 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 $77,140.00 (see Dkt. 23, Attachment 3, p. 2). Plaintiff has moved for a net attorney's fee of $13,285.00 (see Dkt. 23), and the Court has considered plaintiff's gross attorney's fee of $19,034.09 and the EAJA award received by plaintiff's attorney in the amount of $5,749.09. 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 Dkt. 23, Attachments 1, 3, 4, 5, 6), it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's attorney, Eitan Kassel Yanich, Esq., is awarded attorney's fees in the amount of $19,034.09, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), reduced by the EAJA fees of $5,749.09 that were previously awarded, plus an additional voluntary reduction of $250.91, leaving a net fee of $13,285.00. When issuing the 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) check for payment to plaintiff's attorney, Social Security is directed to send to plaintiff's attorney the net balance of $13,285.00, minus any applicable processing fees as allowed by statute. The Social Security Administration is to release the remaining backpay (the previously awarded EAJA fees in the amount of $5,749.09) to plaintiff.

Dated this 31st day of January, 2018.

/s/_________

J. Richard Creatura

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Pace v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Jan 31, 2018
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-05419 JRC (W.D. Wash. Jan. 31, 2018)
Case details for

Pace v. Berryhill

Case Details

Full title:ANGELA PACE, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of the…

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

Date published: Jan 31, 2018

Citations

CASE NO. 3:15-cv-05419 JRC (W.D. Wash. Jan. 31, 2018)