Dina S. v. Frank Bisignano

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 6, 2026
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01631
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 8 Dina S., Case No. 2:22-cv-01631-NJK

9 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 10 v. [Docket No. 22] 11 Frank Bisignano, 12 Defendant(s). 13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion seeking $35,000 in fees pursuant 14 to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Docket No. 22. The Commissioner filed a response. Docket No. 24. 15 “[T]he district court has an affirmative duty to assure that the reasonableness of the fee is 16 established.” Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc); see also, e.g., 17 Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002) (“Rather, § 406(b) calls for court review of such 18 arrangements as an independent check, to assure that they yield reasonable results in particular 19 cases”). Courts must reduce attorney’s fees when they would result in a windfall. See, e.g., 20 Shuffield v. Colvin, 2014 WL 2041935, at *1-2 (D. Nev. May 15, 2014) (rejecting motion for fees 21 with effective hourly rate of $1,486.09 and, instead, awarding fees at an hourly rate of $900). 22 In this case, Plaintiff’s counsel seeks fees that would result in an effective hourly rate of 23 $1,767.67, see Docket No. 22 at 7, but the motion does not cite to any case law from this District 24 awarding an hourly rate even approaching that number. The closest the motion comes is a citation 25 to Schultz v. Berryhill, in which an hourly rate of $1,395 was found to be reasonable. 2021 WL 26 1381128, at *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 9, 2021). Moreover, judges in this District have observed with some 27 regularity that effective hourly rates at or below the Schultz rate are at the very highest end of 28 reasonableness. See Bridget C. v. Kijakazi, 2025 WL 3227467, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 17, 2025) 1} (explaining that an effective hourly rate of $1,338.15 “is certainly on the higher end”); Carroll v. 2|| Kijakazi, 2023 WL 11911797, at *2 (D. Nev. Sept. 21, 2023) (explaining that an effective hourly rate of $1,193.38 is “on the higher end”); Joyce R. v. Kijakazi, 2023 WL 4532829, at *2 (D. Nev. 4! July 12, 2023) (explaining that an effective hourly rate of $1,400 is “on the higher end”); Briggs 5] v. Saul, 2022 WL 16636957, at *1 (D. Nev. Nov. 2, 2022) (explaining that an effective hourly rate 6|| of $1,066.66 was “high as an hourly rate”); Douzat v. Kijakazi, 2021 WL 9316346, at *2 (D. Nev. 7|| Aug. 24, 2021) (explaining that an effective hourly rate of $1,103.45 is “at the upper end of the 8|| range”); but see Maria M. v. Kijakazi, 2026 WL 266892, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 30, 2026) (awarding 9|| fees with an effective hourly rate of $1,800). 10 The Court does not herein resolve the counsel’s motion for attorney’s fees. The Court 11] issues this order to give counsel an opportunity to consider the above case law and decide if counsel wishes to proceed with resolution of the motion practice as is or if counsel wishes to seek a reduced 13] fee amount. No later than February 20, 2026, Plaintiff's counsel must file either (1) a notice of 14] seeking a lower fee award or (2) a notice that counsel wishes to proceed with resolution of the 15|| motion as already filed.' 16 IT IS SO ORDERED 17 Dated: February 6, 2026

Nancy J. “opise 19 United States’Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ' The Court is not inviting further argument on the pending motion. If counsel continues to seek resolution of the motion under the latter option, the notice so indicating must not include 28] further argument.