Candy R. v. Frank Bisignano

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Candy R., Case No. 2:24-cv-00927-NJK 5 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 6], v. [Docket No. 44] 7 Frank Bisignano, 8 Defendant(s). 9 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs counsel’s motion to recover attorney’s fees pursuant 10] to § 406(b). Docket No. 44. The motion addresses many of the pertinent considerations, but it 11] does not sufficiently explain why counsel should receive the 25% maximum recovery. Courts 12] look more favorably on fee requests with voluntary reductions below the 25% maximum and 13] “[s]ocial security attorneys in this District routinely seek significantly less than the 25% maximum 14] resulting in an effective hourly rate below what counsel seeks here [of $1,289].” Dina S. v. 15} Bisignano, 822 F. Supp. 3d 1126, 1131 (D. Nev. 2026) (citing Dillon v. Saul, Case No. 3:20-cv- 16] 00294-CLB, 2022 WL 181221, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 18, 2022), in which the § 406(b) fees requested 17] equaled 14.4% of the benefit awarded and amounted to an effective hourly rate of $506)).! In light 18] of the above, Plaintiffs counsel must file, by August 7, 2026, a supplement better explaining why 19] he should be awarded the maximum 25% recovery in fees. Alternatively, Plaintiff’s counsel may 20] file a notice that he has lowered the amount of fees he is seeking. 22 Dated: July 24, 2026

Nancy J. Keppe | 24 Unite s ates Magistrate Judge 25 26 ' “Given that the claimant has been adjudged disabled and must resort to the social safety net, courts look carefully at § 406(b) fee requests to ensure reasonableness.” Dina S., 822 F. Supp. 3d at 1129 n.2 (citing Ashing v. Astrue, 798 F. Supp. 2d 1143, 1147 (C.D. Cal. 2011)). Such concerns are all the more pronounced here given the representation that Plaintiff has a recent 28] history of homelessness. See Docket No. 44 at 5.