Legal Opinion
Ellick v. Barnhart
District Court, C.D. California
Decided August 17, 2006No. CV 03-6814-EPublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. SECTION 406(b)
EICK, United States Magistrate Judge.
PROCEEDINGS
On June 16, 2006, counsel for Plaintiff filed “Counsel’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to 42 USC § 406(b), etc.” (“the Motion”), seeking $18,500. On July 12, 2006, Defendant filed a response that purportedly takes no position as to whether the requested fee is reasonable, but notes certain factors for the Court’s consideration. Counsel for Plaintiff filed a reply on July 17, 2006. The Court has taken the Motion under…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Gisbrecht v. BarnhartSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
- Hearn v. BarnhartDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2003
- Stephen L. Mudd v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social SecurityCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2005
- Joslyn v. BarnhartDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 2005
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Blizzard v. AstrueDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2007
- Koester v. AstrueDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2007
- Ezekiel v. AstrueDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2012
- Pearce v. AstrueDistrict Court, M.D. Florida · 2008
- Nichols v. Colvin, SSADistrict Court, D. New Hampshire · 2016
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.