L.T. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

D. Nevada

L.T. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedNovember 13, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00303

StatusUnknown

This text of L.T. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security (L.T. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

L.T. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 L.T., Case No.: 2:25-cv-00303-GMN-MDC 4 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO 5 vs. GRANT PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES 6 FRANK BISIGNANO, (ECF No. 19) 7 Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. 8 The Hon. Gloria M. Navarro referred to me Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees 9 (ECF No. 19)(“Motion”) per 28 USC 636. For the reasons below, I RECOMMEND the Motion be 10 GRANTED. 11 DISCUSSION 12 I. BACKGROUND 13 Plaintiff initiated this action seeking review of an unfavorable administrative decision denying 14 his application for Disability Insurance Benefits. On June 20, 2025, Judge Navarro granted the parties’ 15 Stipulation to Voluntarily Remand (ECF No. 17)(“Stipulation”). The parties agreed and stipulated that: 16 [a] The Commissioner’s final decision should be reversed and remanded 17 for further administrative proceedings before an Administrative Law Judge 18 (ALJ); [b] The ALJ should further develop the record, as appropriate, obtain supplemental vocational evidence to assess whether there are jobs in 19 significant numbers that Plaintiff can still do, and issue a new decision. [c] The ALJ should reevaluate the evidence and the step-five finding, as 20 necessary.

21 ECF No. 17. 22 Judgment in favor of plaintiff was subsequently entered on June 23, 2025 (ECF No. 18). 23 Plaintiff filed his Motion on August 14, 2025. Plaintiff seeks $7,051.52 in attorneys’ fees and $405.00 24 in costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). Defendant does not oppose 25 plaintiff’s Motion. 1 II. ANALYSIS 2 In relevant party, 28 U.S.C. §2412(d)(1)(A) provides: “Except as otherwise specifically 3 4 provided by statute, a court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other 5 expenses…. incurred by that party in any civil …. proceedings for judicial review of agency action, 6 brought by or against the United States…. unless the court finds that the position of the United States 7 was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.” Id. An application 8 seeking fees and costs must show that: 9 [1] the party is a prevailing party and is eligible to receive an award under 10 this subsection, and [2] the amount sought, [3] including an itemized statement from any attorney or expert witness representing or appearing in 11 behalf of the party [4] stating the actual time expended and [5] the rate at which fees and other expenses were computed. The party shall also [6] 12 allege that the position of the United States was not substantially justified.

13 See 28 USC §2412(d)(1)(B). Attorneys' Fees awarded under the EAJA must be reasonable. Nerio Mejia 14 v. O'Malley, 120 F.4th 1360, 1364 (9th Cir. 2024). 15 Plaintiff’s Motion satisfies the requirements of 28 USC §2412(d)(1)(B). Plaintiff is the 16 prevailing party (ECF No. 18) and seeks $7,051.52 in attorneys’ fees and $405.00 in costs. Defendant 17 does not dispute that plaintiff is eligible to receive an award of the requested fees and costs. Plaintiff’s 18 Motion includes an itemized statement stating the actual time expended and the rate at which fees and 19 other expenses were computed. Plaintiff further demonstrates that the $7,051.52 attorneys’ fees 20 requested is reasonable and comparable to awards in other Equal Access to Justice Act cases of similar 21 hours worked and fees awarded. See Motion at pp. 5-7, ECF No. 19. Finally, plaintiff alleges that the 22 23 position of the defendant was not substantially justified, which the defendant did not contest. Id. at p. 5. 24 An application for an award of fees and other expenses must be filed “within thirty days of final 25 judgment in the action.” See 28 USC §2412(d)(1)(B). Defendant does not challenge the timing of plaintiff’s Motion. The Judgment here was entered on June 23, 2025 (ECF No. 18). “A judgment 1 becomes final when the appeal time expires.” Schneider v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 2:12-CV-01375-JAD- 2 GW, 2014 WL 4251590, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 27, 2014); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(G). “Because 3 4 the prescribed appeal period in Rule 4(a) for cases in which the United States is a party is 60 days, a 5 judgment in a social security case is no longer appealable when the 60–day period has run.” Schneider, 6 2014 WL 4251590, at *2. Thus, the June 23, 2025, Judgment did not become final until August 22, 7 2024, and Plaintiff’s Motion was timely filed before then, on August 14, 2025. 8 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 9 For the foregoing reasons, 10 I RECOMMEND that plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (ECF No. 19) 11 be GRANTED. 12 13 DATED: November 13, 2025. 14 IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. 15 _________________________ _ 16 Hon. Maximiliano D. Couvillier III United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 NOTICE 19 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 20 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 21 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 22 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 23 time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). 24 25 1 This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) 2 failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District 3 Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 4 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 5 Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any 6 change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, 7 or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may 8 result in dismissal of the action.

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 L.T., Case No.: 2:25-cv-00303-GMN-MDC 4 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO 5 vs. GRANT PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES 6 FRANK BISIGNANO, (ECF No. 19) 7 Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. 8 The Hon. Gloria M. Navarro referred to me Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees 9 (ECF No. 19)(“Motion”) per 28 USC 636. For the reasons below, I RECOMMEND the Motion be 10 GRANTED. 11 DISCUSSION 12 I. BACKGROUND 13 Plaintiff initiated this action seeking review of an unfavorable administrative decision denying 14 his application for Disability Insurance Benefits. On June 20, 2025, Judge Navarro granted the parties’ 15 Stipulation to Voluntarily Remand (ECF No. 17)(“Stipulation”). The parties agreed and stipulated that: 16 [a] The Commissioner’s final decision should be reversed and remanded 17 for further administrative proceedings before an Administrative Law Judge 18 (ALJ); [b] The ALJ should further develop the record, as appropriate, obtain supplemental vocational evidence to assess whether there are jobs in 19 significant numbers that Plaintiff can still do, and issue a new decision. [c] The ALJ should reevaluate the evidence and the step-five finding, as 20 necessary.

21 ECF No. 17. 22 Judgment in favor of plaintiff was subsequently entered on June 23, 2025 (ECF No. 18). 23 Plaintiff filed his Motion on August 14, 2025. Plaintiff seeks $7,051.52 in attorneys’ fees and $405.00 24 in costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). Defendant does not oppose 25 plaintiff’s Motion. 1 II. ANALYSIS 2 In relevant party, 28 U.S.C. §2412(d)(1)(A) provides: “Except as otherwise specifically 3 4 provided by statute, a court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other 5 expenses…. incurred by that party in any civil …. proceedings for judicial review of agency action, 6 brought by or against the United States…. unless the court finds that the position of the United States 7 was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.” Id. An application 8 seeking fees and costs must show that: 9 [1] the party is a prevailing party and is eligible to receive an award under 10 this subsection, and [2] the amount sought, [3] including an itemized statement from any attorney or expert witness representing or appearing in 11 behalf of the party [4] stating the actual time expended and [5] the rate at which fees and other expenses were computed. The party shall also [6] 12 allege that the position of the United States was not substantially justified.

13 See 28 USC §2412(d)(1)(B). Attorneys' Fees awarded under the EAJA must be reasonable. Nerio Mejia 14 v. O'Malley, 120 F.4th 1360, 1364 (9th Cir. 2024). 15 Plaintiff’s Motion satisfies the requirements of 28 USC §2412(d)(1)(B). Plaintiff is the 16 prevailing party (ECF No. 18) and seeks $7,051.52 in attorneys’ fees and $405.00 in costs. Defendant 17 does not dispute that plaintiff is eligible to receive an award of the requested fees and costs. Plaintiff’s 18 Motion includes an itemized statement stating the actual time expended and the rate at which fees and 19 other expenses were computed. Plaintiff further demonstrates that the $7,051.52 attorneys’ fees 20 requested is reasonable and comparable to awards in other Equal Access to Justice Act cases of similar 21 hours worked and fees awarded. See Motion at pp. 5-7, ECF No. 19. Finally, plaintiff alleges that the 22 23 position of the defendant was not substantially justified, which the defendant did not contest. Id. at p. 5. 24 An application for an award of fees and other expenses must be filed “within thirty days of final 25 judgment in the action.” See 28 USC §2412(d)(1)(B). Defendant does not challenge the timing of plaintiff’s Motion. The Judgment here was entered on June 23, 2025 (ECF No. 18). “A judgment 1 becomes final when the appeal time expires.” Schneider v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 2:12-CV-01375-JAD- 2 GW, 2014 WL 4251590, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 27, 2014); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(G). “Because 3 4 the prescribed appeal period in Rule 4(a) for cases in which the United States is a party is 60 days, a 5 judgment in a social security case is no longer appealable when the 60–day period has run.” Schneider, 6 2014 WL 4251590, at *2. Thus, the June 23, 2025, Judgment did not become final until August 22, 7 2024, and Plaintiff’s Motion was timely filed before then, on August 14, 2025. 8 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 9 For the foregoing reasons, 10 I RECOMMEND that plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (ECF No. 19) 11 be GRANTED. 12 13 DATED: November 13, 2025. 14 IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. 15 _________________________ _ 16 Hon. Maximiliano D. Couvillier III United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 NOTICE 19 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 20 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 21 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 22 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 23 time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). 24 25 1 This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) 2 failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District 3 Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 4 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 5 Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any 6 change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, 7 or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may 8 result in dismissal of the action.

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

L.T. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lt-v-frank-bisignano-commissioner-of-social-security-nvd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack