L.G. v. Berryhill
- Joseph Spero
- 3:18-cv-03492
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In L.G. v. Berryhill, Judge Spero denied counsel’s fee motion without prejudice because it lacked required service proof and authentication.
Joshua B. Kons’s request for fees on behalf of L.G.; the court did not decide the amount of fees to award.
What happened
In L.G. v. Berryhill, Joshua B. Kons, who represented L.G. under a contingency-fee agreement, requested $24,899.92 for work before the court under a federal Social Security fee statute.
The court found the request procedurally improper. Counsel did not provide proof that L.G. received a copy of the motion, and the materials supporting the request were not authenticated through a sworn declaration.
Judge Joseph C. Spero denied the motion without prejudice, allowing counsel to file a new motion that corrects those procedural defects.
The detailed version
- L.G. v. Berryhill · No. 3:18-cv-03492
- Joseph Spero
- June 5, 2024
Background
Joshua B. Kons, counsel for L.G. under a contingency-fee agreement, filed a motion under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) requesting $24,899.92 in attorney’s fees for work performed before the court.
Reasons for the ruling
The court identified two procedural defects in the motion:
1. Counsel did not provide a statement, declaration, or other proof showing that a copy of the fee motion had been sent to L.G. The court stated that fee applicants in Social Security benefits cases must provide proof that the claimant received notice of the application.
2. The documents submitted with the fee request were not authenticated. The court stated that the attachments should be supported by a declaration signed under penalty of perjury and that factual assertions beyond the exhibits should also be included in a sworn declaration.
Disposition
The court denied the motion without prejudice because it was procedurally improper. The court stated that counsel could refile a motion for attorney’s fees after curing these procedural defects.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.