Yazzie v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

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
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Fi Therman Yazzie,
Plaintiff,
v.
Commissioner 	of 	Social 	Security
Administration,
Defendant.
No. CV-24-01696-PHX-MTL
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Attorney Jodiane Goodman’s (“Goodman”) Motion
for Attorneys’ Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) (“Motion”).1 (Doc. 20.) The
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) “neither supports
nor opposes counsel’s request for attorney’s fees.” (Doc. 21 at 2.) The Court will grant the
Motion.
I. 	BACKGROUND
The Commissioner initially denied Plaintiff Fi Therman Yazzie’s request for Social
Security Benefits, and Yazzie sought review of that decision. In a different action, the
Commissioner’s decision was reversed and remanded for rehearing; Goodman was
awarded $5,959.06 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C.
§ 2412(d). Order, Yazzie v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., (No. CV-22-00688-PHX-DJH), (D.
Ariz. Jan. 5, 2024), Doc. 23. Yazzie then filed this action with this Court after the
1 The Motion requests relief under § 206(b)(1) of the Social Security Act, which is codified
as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1). The Court refers to § 406(b)(1) rather than § 206 of
the Act for clarity and consistency.
Case 2:24-cv-01696-MTL Document 24 Filed 04/03/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
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
Commissioner issued another unfavorable decision. (Doc. 1 at 2.) The parties then filed a
Stipulated Motion for Remand pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) sentence four (Doc. 14),
which the Court granted (Doc. 15). The Clerk then entered judgment in Yazzie’s favor and
remanded the case to the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) for further proceedings.
(Doc. 16.) Yazzie then moved for attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA. (Doc. 17.) The
Court granted the motion (Doc. 19) and then later amended it to distinguish between
attorneys’ fees and costs, awarding EAJA attorneys’ fees in the amount of $1,076.00 (Doc.
23). In total, Goodman received $7,035.06 in EAJA awards.
On remand, the Commissioner found that Yazzie was entitled to disability benefits
beginning in April 2018. (Doc. 20-3 at 2.) In its Notice of Award, the SSA notified Yazzie
that it was withholding $38,004.00 in case it needed to pay his attorney. (Id. at 4 (“We
usually 	withhold 	25 	percent 	of 	past 	due 	benefits 	in 	order 	to 	pay 	the 	approved
representative’s fee.”)) Goodman now asks the Court to award her and her team $38,004.00
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). (Doc. 20-1 at 4.)
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
When an attorney obtains a favorable judgment for a represented Social Security
claimant in court, the court can award a reasonable fee for the representation, provided the
fee does not exceed 25% of the total of past-due benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). A
court gives primacy to a contingent-fee arrangement between the claimant and his attorney.
Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 793 (2002). A court then determines reasonableness
based on the character of the representation and the results achieved. Id. at 808; Crawford
v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1149, 1151 (9th Cir. 2009). A court can adjust downward if “the
attorney provided substandard representation or delayed the case, or if the requested fee
would result in a windfall.” Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151.
The SSA has no direct interest in how much of the award goes to counsel, so district
courts have an affirmative duty to determine whether the fee is reasonable. Id. at 1149. If
a claimant’s attorney receives fees under both EAJA and § 406(b), the claimant’s attorney
must “refund to the claimant the amount of the smaller fee.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 789.
Case 2:24-cv-01696-MTL Document 24 Filed 04/03/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
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
III. 	DISCUSSION
The requested $38,004.00 is reasonable under the Gisbrecht factors. Yazzie agreed
to allow Goodman and her team to seek up to 25% of past-due benefits, which Goodman
now requests. (Doc. 20-2 at 2.) While the Notice of Award does not provide the total
amount of past-due benefits awarded to Yazzie, the Court infers that the Commissioner’s
withholding $38,004.00 as 25% of the total results in an award of $152,016.00. Maske v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-18-04891-PHX-DWL, 2026 WL 242858, at *1 (D.
Ariz. Jan. 29, 2026) (“In the Court’s experience, the amount withheld is consistently 25%
of the total amount.”).
Goodman and her team2 logged 8.7 hours of paralegal time and 27.4 hours of
attorney time, totaling 36.1 hours working on Yazzie’s case. (Doc. 20-1 at 3–4.) Billing
paralegal time at $100 an hour results in an effective attorney hourly rate of $1,355.26. See
Tyner v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV 19-489-TUC-LAB, 2021 WL 1895254, at *2
(D. Ariz. May 11, 2021) (finding hourly rate of $100 for paralegals to be reasonable); (Doc.
20-1 at 3 (requesting the paralegal time be billed at $100 an hour)). This is toward “the
high end of acceptable rates” in the District of Arizona but is still “within the range of
reasonableness.” Williams v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-20-00136-PHX-JAT,
2025 WL 1342821, at *2 (D. Ariz. May 8, 2025) (hourly rate of $1,482.05 was reasonable);
see also McCabe v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-22-00192-PHX-DLR, 2025 WL
460744, at *1 (D. Ariz. Feb. 11, 2025) (hourly rate of $1,513.51 was reasonable).
Goodman and her team were able to obtain Social Security Benefits for Yazzie, and
there is no indication in the record of substandard representation or delay. Gisbrecht, 535
U.S. at 808; Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151. This award would also not result in a windfall
for Yazzie’s attorneys. Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808. Accordingly, considering the Gisbrecht
reasonableness factors, the Court finds that the requested $38,004.00 fee award is
reasonable.
. . . .
2 While Goodman made this Motion, the submitted time ledger includes work by other
attorneys and paralegals on Yazzie’s case. (See Docs. 20-4, 20-5, 20-6.)
Case 2:24-cv-01696-MTL Document 24 Filed 04/03/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
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
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Motion for Attorney
Fees (Doc. 20) is GRANTED in the amount of $38,004.00.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s counsel must, after receipt of the
above awarded fee, refund to Plaintiff the fees previously awarded under the EAJA in the
amount of $7,035.06.
Dated this 3rd day of April, 2026.
Case 2:24-cv-01696-MTL Document 24 Filed 04/03/26 Page 4 of 4