Villegas v. Bisignano

1
19-cv-1856-DEB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
YOLANDA V.
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANK BISIGNANO,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
Case No.: 19-cv-1856-DEB
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO
42 U.S.C. § 406(b)
[DKT. NO. 26]
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 406(b). Dkt. No. 26 (“Motion”). Neither Plaintiff nor the Commissioner oppose
the Motion.
For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the Motion.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Yolanda V. filed this action seeking review of the Commissioner of Social
Security’s (“Commissioner”) denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits.
Dkt. No. 1 (Compl.). The Court reversed the denial of benefits and remanded the case for
further proceedings. Dkt. No. 23. Pursuant to the parties’ joint motion (Dkt. No. 24), the
Court awarded Plaintiff $4,400 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access for Justice Act
(“EAJA”). Dkt. No. 25.
Case 3:19-cv-01856-DEB Document 28 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 4

2
19-cv-1856-DEB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On remand, the Commissioner issued a decision favorable to Plaintiff and awarded
$247,681.00 in past-due disability insurance benefits. Dkt. No. 26-4 at 2, 4. The
Commissioner withheld $61,920.25 from the award in case Plaintiff’s counsel requested
payment of fees. Id. at 4.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Attorneys may seek “a reasonable fee” for successfully representing Social Security
claimants. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). The fee cannot exceed “25 percent of the total of the
past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled . . . .” Id.; see also Gisbrecht v. Barnhart,
535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002) (“Within the 25 percent [statutory] boundary . . ., the attorney
for the successful claimant must show that the fee sought is reasonable for the services
rendered.”).
The Court “must ‘approach [§ 406(b)] fee determinations by looking first to the
contingent-fee agreement, then testing it for reasonableness.’” Crawford v. Astrue, 586
F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (quoting Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808). In
evaluating the reasonableness of the fee award, the Court must consider “the character of
the representation and the results the representative achieved.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808
(citations omitted). The Court 	also 	“may properly 	reduce the fee for substandard
performance, delay, or benefits that are not in proportion to the time spent on the case.”
Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151 (citation omitted).
Finally, the Court must offset the § 406(b) fee award by any fees granted under the
EAJA. See Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 796 (“Fee awards may be made under both prescriptions
[i.e., the EAJA and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)], but the claimant’s attorney must ‘refun[d] to the
claimant the amount of the smaller fee.’” (citation omitted)).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s counsel seeks $37,920.25 in attorney’s fees, offset by the previous $4,400
EAJA fee award, for a net award of $33,520.25. Dkt. No. 26-1 at 4, 10. The Court has
conducted an independent inquiry and finds the requested fee is reasonable and not a
windfall.
Case 3:19-cv-01856-DEB Document 28 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 4

3
19-cv-1856-DEB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff and counsel entered into a contingency fee agreement for counsel to receive
25% of past-due benefits.1 Dkt. No. 26-2. Counsel now requests attorney’s fees totaling
15.3% of the past due award. Dkt. No. 26-1 at 4, 10. Neither the Commissioner nor Plaintiff
oppose counsel’s request.
The Court does not find any reduction is warranted. See Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151
(“The court may properly reduce the fee for substandard performance, delay, or benefits
that are not in proportion to the time spent on the case.” (citation omitted)). Counsel
“assumed significant risk” in accepting this case, “including the risk that no benefits would
be awarded or that there would be a long court or administrative delay in resolving” this
case. Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1152; see also Moreno v. Berryhill, No. 13-cv-8492-PLA,
2018 WL 3490777, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 19, 2018) (explaining the “risk of nonpayment
inherent in a contingency agreement”).
There is no evidence of substandard performance or delay,2 and the requested fees
are “not excessively large in relation to the benefits achieved” or the “time spent on the
case.” Id. Counsel and a paralegal expended 22.3 hours on this case,3 for an effective hourly
rate of $1,700.46. Dkt. No. 26-5. Counsel has practiced social security law for over 25
years (Dkt. No. 26-1 ¶ 9), and his representation resulted in Plaintiff receiving a favorable
decision and an award of eight years’ of past-due benefits. The Court finds this fee award
sought is reasonable considering the experience of counsel, the risk assumed, and the result
obtained. See Palos v. Colvin, No. 15-cv-4261-DTB, 2016 WL 5110243, at *2 (C.D. Cal.
Sep. 20, 2016) (approving an hourly rate of $1,546.39 for 9.7 hours worked, in part because
“[c]ounsel’s efforts ultimately proved quite successful for plaintiff.”); Dkt. No. 26-4 at 1.
1 A strict 25% is $61,920.25.
2 The parties requested (and received) a 45-day extension of the dispositive motion filing
deadline based on staffing changes and reassignment to new counsel. Dkt. No. 17 at 1–2;
Dkt. No. 18 at 2.
3 Counsel billed 19.5 hours, and a paralegal billed 2.8 hours. Dkt. No. 26-5.
Case 3:19-cv-01856-DEB Document 28 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 3
of 4

4
19-cv-1856-DEB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Counsel’s requested fee is not so inordinately large relative to the number of hours spent
that it represents a windfall. White v. Berryhill, No. 04-cv-0331-AS, 2017 WL 11634804,
at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2017) (approving a $1,612 effective hourly rate for 24.95 hours
billed by counsel and paralegal); Reddick v. Berryhill, No. 16-cv-0029-BTM-BLM, 2019
WL 2330895, at *1–2 (S.D. Cal. May 30, 2019) (approving an effective hourly rate of
$1,990.74 for 21.6 hours of work, on reconsideration).
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s counsel’s Motion for
Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to § 406(b) in the amount of $37,920.25. Dkt. No. 26.
The Commissioner is DIRECTED to certify payment of a $37,920.25 fee award,
made payable to the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, Inc., CPC and delivered to
Brian C. Shapiro, out of Plaintiff’s past-due benefits in accordance with agency policy.
The Court further ORDERS Plaintiff’s counsel to refund Plaintiff $4,400 to offset
the EAJA fees previously awarded.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 5, 2026
Case 3:19-cv-01856-DEB Document 28 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 4
of 4