Gibbs v. Saul
- Sallie Kim
- 3:19-cv-06199
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Gibbs v. Saul, Judge Kim denied the Commissioner’s request to change an attorney-fee award.
The Commissioner of Social Security and John F. Gibbs’s counsel; the court’s attorney-fee award was not changed.
What happened
In Gibbs v. Saul, the Commissioner of Social Security asked the court to change its award of attorney fees to John F. Gibbs’s lawyer. The Commissioner argued that the court should not have considered work performed during the administrative proceedings when evaluating the requested fees.
The Commissioner said that counting only the lawyer’s federal-court hours produced an effective rate of $1,014.11 per hour. The court acknowledged that the rate was high but noted that other California courts had approved similar rates.
Judge Sallie Kim found the fees reasonable based on the lawyer’s quality of work, the result achieved for Gibbs, and the risks involved. The court denied the Commissioner’s motion to alter or amend the judgment.
The detailed version
- Gibbs v. Saul · No. 3:19-cv-06199
- Sallie Kim
- Mar. 23, 2021
Background
The Commissioner of Social Security moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the court’s judgment awarding attorney fees. A Rule 59(e) motion asks the court to change a judgment based on grounds such as a serious legal or factual error, newly discovered evidence, manifest injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law.
Parties’ Positions
The Commissioner argued that the court had erred by considering John F Gibbs’s counsel’s hours spent at the administrative level when deciding whether the requested fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) were reasonable. The Commissioner asserted that, if only federal-court hours were counted, the effective hourly rate would be $1,014.11.
Court’s Analysis
The court recognized that the effective hourly rate was high. It cited decisions from California courts, including the Northern District of California, approving similar effective rates. The court also considered counsel’s quality of work, the result achieved for Gibbs, and the risks counsel incurred.
Ruling
Judge Sallie Kim found that counsel’s requested fees were reasonable, including at the effective rate of $1,014.11. The court therefore DENIED the Commissioner’s motion to alter or amend judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.