Legal Opinion
Cantrell v. Astrue
District Court, N.D. California
Decided July 10, 2009No. C 04-0645 PJHPublished
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, District Judge.
Currently before the court is plaintiff Donald Cantrell’s (“Cantrell”) attorney, Henry Reynolds’ motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). For the following reasons, the court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion.
BACKGROUND
Cantrell applied for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act (“SSA”). The Social Security Commissioner (“Commissioner”) denied the application both initially and on reconsideration. On…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Gisbrecht v. BarnhartSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Hearn v. BarnhartDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2003
- Richard S. RUSSELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- Sorenson v. MinkCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Crawford v. AstrueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008