Gina F. v. Frank Bisignano

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: June 29, 2026
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01077
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 Gina F., Case No. 2:22-cv-01077-NJK

8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 9 v. [Docket No. 23] 10 Frank Bisignano, 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s counsel Marc Kalagian’s motion for attorney’s fees 13 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Docket No. 23. The Commissioner filed a response. Docket No. 14 24. Attorney Kalagian filed a supplement. Docket No. 25.1 15 The instant motion suffers from several deficiencies. As threshold matters, the motion has 16 a number of errors, including representing that Attorney Kalagian seeks to recover only .08% in 17 fees, when the number is actually 8%. See, e.g., Docket No. 23 at 7.2 The motion also appears to 18 be incomplete, as it includes at least three bracketed references to the need to “[i]nsert [t]ext.” See, 19 e.g., id. 20 Additionally, the motion ignores the recent rulings by the undersigned that appear to be 21 closely on point. By way of example, the motion relies on out-of-state rate determinations and the 22 Laffey matrix, see id. at 8, 9-10, despite the undersigned’s recent rejection of the same, see Dina 23 S. v. Bisignano, 822 F. Supp. 3d 1126, 1132 & n.8 (D. Nev. 2026); Allan G., 2026 WL 1361585, 24

25 1 The pin-citations herein refer to the CMECF pagination, not the pagination native to the documents. 26 2 As another example, the motion cites to a Williams case from the District of Arizona at 27 “2025 WL 134282,” see Docket No. 23 at 5, which is a faulty citation. The Court will not expend its scarce judicial resources identifying all of the errors in the motion, as counsel is expected to 28 proof carefully his submissions before they are filed. 1] at *3 n.7 (D. Nev. May 14, 2026).> While attorneys are free to raise arguments reasonably 2|| supported by the facts and the law, they also have a duty to acknowledge the Court’s prior orders 3} and explain why the previously-articulated reasoning should not apply to the pending motion. See Atlantis Enterps., Inc. vy. Avon Prods., Inc., 2010 WL 11519593, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2010); 5| see also U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Com’n vy. Lake Shore Asset Mgmt. Ltd., 540 F. Supp. 6] 2d 994, 1015 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (litigants “play with fire if they raise the same arguments over and 7|| over and fail to acknowledge prior adverse rulings”). The instant motion does not acknowledge 8|| the prior adverse rulings issued by the undersigned as to Attorney Kalagian’s motions for fees in 9] this exact context, nor does the motion provide meaningfully developed argument why the Court 10] should not take the same course again in this case. 11 Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice the pending motion for attorney’s fees 12] pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Any renewed request must be filed by July 13, 2026. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED 14 Dated: June 29, 2026 . Nancy J. Koppe, 16 United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26), ———— > Again, there are other examples, including the motion’s discussion of the risks in social 27|| security cases on the whole rather than the risks for this specific case. See Docket No. 23 at 13- 14; but see, e.g., Dina S., 822 F. Supp. 3d at 1130 n.4. The Court will not endeavor to catalogue 28] herein all of the examples.