Legal Opinion

Williams v. Berryhill

District Court, S.D. California

Decided May 7, 2025No. 3:18-cv-02678Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MADELINE W., Case No.: 18-cv-02678-AJB-BLM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 13 v. ATTORNEY’S FEES 14 FRANK BISIGNANO,1 Acting (Doc. No. 28) Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Before the Court is a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) filed 19 by Denise Bourgeois Haley, counsel for Plaintiff Madeline W. (“Plaintiff”). (Doc. No. 28.) 20 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1, the Court finds the matter suitable for determination 21 on the papers. For the reasons…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Gisbrecht v. BarnhartSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  2. Crawford v. AstrueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
  3. United States v. ChairseDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1998

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API