Legal Opinion

Martinez-Vazquez v. Saul

District Court, S.D. California

Decided July 14, 2023No. 3:20-cv-02084Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AMOR M.-V., Case No.: 20-cv-2084-DEB 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S v. COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR 14 ATTORNEY FEES KILOLO KIJAKAZI, 15 Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 16 Defendant. [DKT. NO. 20] 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Motion for Attorney Fees (“Motion”) 18 pursuant to Social Security Act § 206(b)(1) and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Dkt. No. 20. For the 19 reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff Amor M. filed this action seeking review of…

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. Chapa v. AstrueDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2011

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

Powered by the Exa API