Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled July 27, 2023

Silva v. Kijakazi

Judge
Joseph Spero
Docket
3:21-cv-09725
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Social SecurityFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Silva v. Kijakazi, Judge Spero denied counsel’s Social Security fee motion without prejudice because required service and authenticated supporting materials were missing.

Who this affects

Xavier J Silva and his counsel; the fee motion was denied without prejudice, so counsel may refile a corrected motion.

What happened

In Silva v. Kijakazi, counsel asked for $22,225 in fees for representing Xavier J Silva on a contingency-fee basis. The requested amount was 25% of the past-due disability benefits awarded after the court reversed the denial of Silva’s application.

The court found procedural defects in the request. Counsel did not provide the required statement showing that the motion had been sent to Silva, and the supporting documents were not properly authenticated. Facts beyond the exhibits also needed to be supported by a sworn declaration.

Judge Joseph C. Spero denied the fee motion without prejudice, allowing counsel to file a new motion that corrects these defects.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Silva v. Kijakazi · No. 3:21-cv-09725
Judge
Joseph Spero
Date
July 27, 2023

Background

Counsel for Xavier J Silva moved for an award of $22,225 in attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Counsel represented Silva on a contingency-fee basis and stated that the requested amount represented 25% of the past-due benefits awarded after the court reversed the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying Silva’s disability-benefits application.

Reasons for the Ruling

The court held that the motion was procedurally defective for two reasons. First, counsel was required to provide a statement showing that a copy of the fee motion had been sent to Silva. The court relied on 20 C.F.R. § 404.1725(a)(7) and cases requiring proof that the claimant received notice of a fee request.

Second, the materials submitted with the fee request needed to be authenticated. The court directed that attachments be supported by a declaration signed under penalty of perjury. Any factual assertions not established by the exhibits also needed to appear in a sworn declaration, including facts concerning an alleged error by the Social Security Administration involving approval of the administrative fee agreement and failure to withhold the full 25% of Silva’s past-due benefits.

Disposition

Judge Joseph C. Spero denied the motion without prejudice to refiling a fee motion that cures the identified procedural defects. The opinion did not decide whether counsel was ultimately entitled to the requested fee amount.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.