Mercedie Marie T. v. Frank Bisignano

Opinion

1 4 5] Mercedie Marie T.., Case No. 2:25-cv-02288-NJK 6 Plaintiff(s), ORDER Vv. [Docket No. 15] Frank Bisignano, 9 Defendant(s). 10 Attorneys “play with fire if they raise the same arguments over and over and fail to 11] acknowledge prior adverse rulings.” Atlantis Enterps., Inc. v. Avon Prods. Inc., 2010 WL 12] 11519593, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2010) (quoting U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Com’n v. 13] Lake Shore Asset Mgmt. Ltd., 540 F. Supp. 2d 994, 1015 (N.D. Ill. 2008)). The Court recently 14} issued an order explaining that “[p]lentiful case law in this District finds that paralegal work in the 15} social security context generally fetches $100 in this community,” Todd Allen J. v. Bisignano, 16] 2026 WL 881668, at *1 (D. Nev. Mar. 30, 2026) (collecting cases), and Attorney Kalagian 17] responded to that order by reducing the fees sought to reflect a $100 hourly rate for paralegals, see 18} id., Case No. 2:25-cv-1940-NJK, Docket Nos. 17, 17-1, 17-2 (D. Nev. Apr. 8, 2026). And, yet, 19] just days later, Attorney Kalagian is back again seeking an hourly rate of $179 for the exact same 20] paralegal. Docket No. 15-2. Attorney Kalagian does so despite acknowledging the adverse case 21} law previously identified. See Docket No. 15 at 7. What is missing is any meaningfully developed argument as to how or why the Court would award fees based on an hourly rate of $179 for 23] paralegals. Accordingly, the pending stipulation is DENIED without prejudice. Any renewed 24] request must be filed by April 21, 2026. 26 Dated: April 14, 2026

Nancy J. Koppe\ 28 United States Magistrate Judge