Nelson v. Dudek

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 MATTHEW N., Case No. 2:24-cv-02389-NJK

7 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 8 v. [Docket No. 24] 9 FRANK BISIGNANO, 10 Defendant(s). 11 Pending before the Court is a stipulation to award Plaintiff $5,800 in attorneys’ fees 12 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), as well as $405 in costs pursuant to 28 13 U.S.C. § 1920. Docket No. 24. 14 Although Plaintiff’s fee request is not opposed, the Court has an independent obligation to 15 review the reasonableness of the fee award. See, e.g., Bradley V. v. Kijakazi, 2021 WL 4554108, 16 at *1-3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2021); Atunez v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 2017 WL 4075830, at *2 17 (D. Ariz. Sept. 13, 2017); Keyser v. Astrue, 2012 WL 78461, at *3 (D. Ore. Jan. 10, 2012); Lucas 18 v. White, 63 F. Supp. 2d 1046, 1060 (N.D. Cal. 1999). Fees awarded under the EAJA are 19 determined based on the lodestar approach, except that the hourly rates are capped unless the Court 20 in its discretion determines otherwise. See Costa v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 690 F.3d 1132, 21 1135 (9th Cir. 2012); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). Supporting the hourly rate for lodestar 22 purposes requires the presentation of evidence “that the requested rates are in line with those 23 prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, 24 experience and reputation.” Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984). The Ninth Circuit 25 has held that “rate determinations in other cases [in that community], particularly those setting a 26 rate for the [specific] attorney[s]” at issue, provide satisfactory evidence as to the prevailing hourly 27 rate. United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 1990). The 28 1] Court may also rely on its own familiarity with the prevailing rates. Ingram v. Oroudjian, 647 2|| F.3d 925, 928 (9th Cir. 2011). 3 The hourly rates sought by Attorney Kalagian and Attorney Perales are in accordance with 4! those the Court has awarded to them in other cases. See Docket No. 24 at 5 (listing cases). Moreover, the hours documented by counsel appear to be reasonable. See Docket No. 24-2 at 1- 6] 2.! 7 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the stipulation to award Plaintiff $5,800 in attorneys’ 8] fees pursuant to the EAJA, as well as $405 in costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED 10 Dated: July 3, 2025 Nancy J. Koppe\ 12 United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ' The lodestar for attorney time totals $5,830, Docket No. 24-2 at 2, which is more than the amount sought and awarded. Accordingly, the Court need not opine as to the paralegal work identified.