C.L. v. Saul
- Susan Van Keulen
- 5:20-cv-06161
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In C.L. v. Saul, Judge Van Keulen ordered more briefing before deciding whether C.L.’s attorney-fee motion was timely.
C.L. and C.L.’s attorney, whose pending request for attorney fees must be supported with additional information; Andrew Saul may respond to that information.
What happened
C.L. sued Andrew Saul seeking review of a decision denying disability benefits. The court later remanded the case for additional administrative proceedings and approved a stipulation concerning attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
C.L. then filed a motion seeking attorney fees under a different law, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), on July 25, 2024. The motion followed notices dated March 9, 2023, stating that the representative had 60 days to ask the Social Security Administration to approve payment from withheld benefits. The record did not explain whether C.L.’s attorney acted by that deadline or what happened to the withheld money.
Judge Susan Van Keulen did not decide whether the fee motion was timely. She ordered C.L. to file, by September 10, 2024, a supplemental brief of no more than three pages and a supporting declaration addressing the delays. Andrew Saul could, but did not have to, respond within seven days after that filing.
The detailed version
- C.L. v. Saul · No. 5:20-cv-06161
- Susan Van Keulen
- Aug. 20, 2024
Background
C.L. filed the action seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying disability benefits. On August 17, 2021, the court granted the parties’ stipulation to remand the case for further administrative proceedings. On August 31, 2021, the court granted a stipulation settling C.L.’s claim for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a federal law that can permit fee awards in qualifying cases involving the government.
On July 25, 2024, C.L. filed the pending motion for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). According to the motion, after the remand, C.L. was awarded continuing disability benefits and received additional provisional benefits in 2023. The Social Security Administration withheld approximately $20,470 for possible attorney fees. Notices dated March 9, 2023, stated that the representative had to ask the agency to approve payment from the withheld benefits within 60 days, or notify the agency by that deadline that work on the case was not finished and the representative intended to charge a fee.
Issue
The court explained that Section 406(b) does not provide a specific filing deadline for an attorney-fee request. The court referred to a prior related proceeding in the Northern District of California stating that, absent controlling Ninth Circuit law, the appropriate question may be whether the request was filed within a reasonable time. That analysis includes whether there was an unreasonable delay and whether the attorney was responsible for it.
The record did not show whether C.L.’s attorney notified the Social Security Administration of an intent to seek fees, or what had happened to the amount withheld. The motion also stated that a final favorable decision was issued in February 2024, but that decision was not submitted with the motion.
Order
Judge Susan Van Keulen ordered C.L. to file by September 10, 2024, a supplemental brief no longer than three pages and a supporting declaration addressing the timeliness of the Section 406(b) motion. The filing must address both the delay between the March 9, 2023 notices and the July 25, 2024 motion, and the delay between the February 2024 final decision and the motion. Andrew Saul may file a response within seven days after the supplemental brief, but is not required to do so.
The court did not decide whether the fee motion was timely or whether to award the requested fees.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.