Estrada v. Berryhill

[6] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON [7] AT SEATTLE [8] CINDY M. ESTRADA, CASE NO. C18-5362RSM [9] ORDER GRANTING 10 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION AND CROSS MOTION FOR 11 v. ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 406 (b) 12 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, [13] Defendant. [14] This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees pursuant to [15] 42 U.S.C. § 406 (b), Dkt. #68, on behalf of Attorney Jeanette Laffoon. Plaintiff also filed a Cross [16] Motion for Attorney Fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406 (b), Dkt. #72, on behalf of Attorney Eitan [17] Yanich. Attorney Laffoon seeks attorney’s fees in the amount of $13,090.34. Dkt. #68 at 1. [18] This amount comes from 25% of Plaintiff’s retroactive benefits, $41,864.25, minus the previous [19] fees ordered under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), $4,736.70 to attorney Laffoon, [20] $24,037.21 to attorney Yanich. The Commissioner requests that the Court issue one order clearly [21] indicating the amount of § 406(b) fees entitled to each counsel. Dkt. #83 at 2. [22] Attorney’s fees may be awarded to a successful social security claimant’s lawyer for his [23] or her representation before a court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 406 (b). Straw v. Bowen, 866 F.2d 24 1 1167 (9th Cir.1989). Plaintiff must apply to the Social Security Administration for an award of fees for representation at the administrative level. 42 U.S.C. § 406 (a); Stenswick v. Bowen, 815 2 F.2d 519 (9th Cir.1987). Under 42 U.S.C. § 406 (b), the Court may allow a reasonable fee for an [3] attorney who represented a Social Security Title II claimant before the Court and obtained a [4] favorable judgment, as long as such fee is not in excess of 25% of the total past-due benefits. See [5] Grisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002). Fee awards may be made under both the EAJA [6] and § 406(b), but the claimant’s attorney must refund to the claimant the amount of the smaller [7] fee. See Gisbrecht at 796. [8] Both attorney Laffoon and attorney Yanich defer to this Court’s discretion on the [9] potential splitting of the § 406(b) fee. Twenty-five percent of Plaintiff’s past-due benefits was [10] withheld for potential fees, amounting to $41,864.25. Dkt. #69-2. Plaintiff and counsel have [11] subsequently agreed to a twenty-five percent fee from total past-due benefits, i.e. $41,864.25. [12] Dkts. #69-1, #72-3. The Court concludes this amount is reasonable within the meaning of § [13] 406(b). The awarded EAJA fees of $28,773.91 ($4,736.70 to attorney Laffoon in 2016, [14] $24,037.21 to attorney Yanich in 2023) were less than twenty-five percent of Plaintiff’s past-due [15] benefits. Because the awarded EAJA fees were lesser than $41,864.25, Plaintiff’s counsel is due [16] the net amount of $41,864.25 minus the $28,773.91 in EAJA fees that were previously [17] awarded—$13,090.34—which will be split evenly between attorney Laffoon and attorney [18] Yanich. See Gisbrecht at 796. [19] CONCLUSION [20] Accordingly, having reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion and Cross Motion, the Commissioner’s [21] Response, the exhibits and declarations attached thereto, and the remainder of the record, the [22] Court ORDERS as follows: [24] 1 1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 406(b), Dkt. #68, is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff’s attorney, Jeanette Laffoon, is awarded reasonable fees [2] in the sum of $6,545.17; [3] 2) Plaintiff’s Cross Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 406(b), Dkt. #72, [4] is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff’s attorney, Eitan Yanich, is awarded reasonable fees [5] in the sum of $6,545.17; [6] 3) This net payment of fees comprises 25% of Plaintiff’s past-due benefits minus the [7] previously awarded EAJA fees; [8] 4) Any payment of fees is from the claimant’s withheld past-due benefits. If the [9] Commissioner has not withheld past-due benefits sufficient to satisfy this order and [10] Plaintiffs’ attorneys report they are unable to collect the fee from the claimant, the [11] Commissioner will satisfy this order via the procedures in the Program Operation [12] Manual System (POMS) GN 03920.055.C. [14] IT IS SO ORDERED. [16] Dated this 4th day of March, 2024. [17] 18 A [19] RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE