Candy R. v. Frank Bisignano

Opinion

Candy R., Case No. 2:24-cv-00927-NJK

Plaintiff(s), ORDER v. [Docket No. 40] Frank Bisignano, Defendant(s). Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to recover attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). Docket No. 40. Although Plaintiff’s fee request appears to be unopposed, the Court has an independent obligation to review the reasonableness of the fee award. See, e.g., Bradley V. v. Kijakazi, 2021 WL 4554108, at *1-3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2021); Atunez v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 2017 WL 4075830, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 13, 2017); Keyser v. Astrue, 2012 WL 78461, at *3 (D. Ore. Jan. 10, 2012); Lucas v. White, 63 F. Supp. 2d 1046, 1060 (N.D. Cal. 1999). Fees awarded under the EAJA are determined based on the lodestar approach, except that the hourly rates are capped unless the Court in its discretion determines otherwise. See Costa v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 690 F.3d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 2012); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). The lodestar analysis includes consideration of the degree of success obtained. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 436 (1983). Courts have reduced fee awards in the social security context when the remand order is limited. See, e.g., Guenther v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 540 F. Supp. 3d 1019, 1026-27 (W.D. Wash. 2021). In this case, the Court affirmed the ALJ’s mental health findings and remanded for further consideration of Plaintiff’s physical limitations. Docket No. 38 at 4-10. The instant motion for attorney’s fees does not address whether the fee award should be reduced given that circumstance. 1 No later than November 21, 2025, Plaintiff must file a supplemental brief of no more than five pages explaining whether the fee award should be reduced and/or proposing an appropriate 3] reduction to account for the circumstances of this case. Dated: November 12, 2025 , Nancy J. Koppe United StatesMagistrate Judge