Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Edward C., Case No.: 23-cv-01170-AJB-KSC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 13 v. ATTORNEY’S FEES 14 FRANK BISIGNANO, Acting (Doc. No. 19) Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 18 Before the Court is a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) filed 19 by Francesco Benavides, counsel for Plaintiff Edward C. (“Plaintiff”). (Doc. No. 19.) 20 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1, the Court finds the matter suitable for determination 21 on the papers. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the motion 22 for attorney’s fees. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 On June 23, 2023, Plaintiff signed a contingency fee agreement retaining Benavides 25 to represent Plaintiff in connection with his disability insurance benefits claim before the 26 United States District Court. (Doc. No. 19-6.) 27 On June 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking judicial review of the 28 Commissioner’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. (Doc. No. 1.) 1 On July 29, 2024, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff, vacated the decision of 2 the Commissioner, and remanded the matter to the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) 3 for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 4 (Doc. Nos. 16; 21; 22.) 5 On August 20, 2024, the parties filed a joint motion for Plaintiff to be awarded 6 attorney’s fees and expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 7 U.S.C. § 2412(d). (Doc. No. 17.) The Court granted the joint motion, awarding the 8 requested $7,346.84 in fees and no costs. (Doc. No. 18.) Subsequently, on remand, the SSA 9 awarded Plaintiff $92,483.90 in retroactive benefits. (Doc. Nos. 19-1 at 1; 19-2, 10 Declaration of Francesco Benavides, (“Benavides Decl.”), ¶ 4; 19-4 (Notice of Award).) 11 On April 6, 2026, Benavides filed the instant motion in which he seeks $13,900.00 12 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §406(b) for 29.6 hours expended, $7,346.84 of which Benavides will 13 reimburse Plaintiff for the previously awarded EAJA fees. (See generally Doc. No. 19.) No 14 response has been filed (see generally Docket), and the deadline for response and reply has 15 expired, (see Doc. No. 20). 16 II. LEGAL STANDARD 17 “Under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), a court entering judgment in favor of [a social security] 18 claimant who was represented by an attorney ‘may determine and allow as part of its 19 judgment a reasonable fee for such representation, not in excess of 25 percent of the total 20 of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled by reason of such 21 judgment.’” Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1147 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) 22 (quoting § 406(b)(1)(A)). “Within the 25 percent boundary, . . . the attorney for the 23 successful claimant must show that the fee sought is reasonable for the services 24 rendered.” Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002). 25 “[A] district court charged with determining a reasonable fee award 26 under § 406(b)(1)(A) must respect ‘the primacy of lawful attorney-client fee 27 agreements,’ . . . ‘looking first to the contingent-fee agreement, then testing it 28 for reasonableness.’” Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1148 (quoting Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 793, 1 808). When determining reasonableness, the court must consider “whether the amount 2 need be reduced, not whether the loadstar amount should be enhanced.” Id. at 1149. While 3 there is not a definitive list of factors, courts should consider “the character of the 4 representation and the results the representative achieved.” Gisbrecht, 533 U.S. at 808. 5 “The court may properly reduce the fee for substandard performance, delay, or benefits 6 that are not in proportion to the time spent on the case.” Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151. 7 However, since Gisbrecht, “district courts generally have been deferential to the terms of 8 contingency fee contracts in § 406(b) cases, accepting that the resulting de facto hourly 9 rates may exceed those for non[-]contingency-fee arrangements.” Hearn v. Barnhart, 262 10 F. Supp. 2d 1033, 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2003). Finally, any fee award under § 406 must be offset 11 by any award of attorney’s fees granted under the EAJA. 28 U.S.C. § 2412; Gisbrecht, 535 12 U.S. at 796. 13 III. DISCUSSION 14 Having reviewed the record and respecting the primacy of lawful attorney-client fee 15 agreements, the Court finds that the amount of attorney’s fees sought is reasonable. See 16 Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1148. First, the requested amount is does not exceed the agreed upon 17 25% cap for services rendered prosecuting judicial review.1 (See Doc. No. 19-1.) 18 Moreover, there is no indication that Plaintiff’s agreement to pay counsel 25% of any past- 19 due benefits was reached by improper means. There is nothing in the record to suggest 20 substandard performance, dilatory conduct, or a disproportionate amount of time spent on 21 this case relevant to the benefits at stake. Rather, counsel’s representation resulted in a 22 favorable outcome before this Court, a favorable decision on remand before the SSA, and 23 the Commissioner’s award of past-due benefits. (See Doc. Nos. 16; 19.) 24 Lastly, the Court notes that the effective hourly rate of approximately is well within 25 the range of rates awarded by other courts. See, e.g., Guy C. v. Bisignano, No. 23-CV- 26 01105-AJB-MSB, 2025 WL 1655438, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) (finding an hourly 27 1 In fact, by the Court’s calculation, the requested fees are approximately 15% of the awarded 28 1 of $1,533.33 to be “high” but “within the range of rates awarded by other courts”); 2 || Reddick v. Berryhill, No. 16-CV-00029-BTM-BLM, 2019 WL 2330895, at *1—2 (S.D. Cal. 3 || May 30, 2019) (granting $43,000 in fees for 21.6 hours of work, which effectively is an 4 ||hourly rate of $1,990.74, on reconsideration). In fact, Benavides excluded from his hours 5 ||2.7 hours expended by his legal assistant on this case, which also supports the 6 || reasonableness of the request. 7 Accordingly, based on the character of counsel’s representation and the favorable 8 || results achieved, the Court finds the requested fees in the amount of $13,900.00 reasonable. 9 CONCLUSION 10 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs counsel’s motion 11 || for attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) and APPROVES an award in the 12 ||amount of $13,900.00. The Court further ORDERS Plaintiffs counsel to refund Plaintiff 13 $7,346.84 for the EAJA fees previously paid. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: May 5, 2026 © 16 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4