Garrison v. Kijakazi ( 2024 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 CASSIE G., Case No. 2:23-cv-01063-NJK 7 Plaintiff, Order 8 v. [Docket No. 21] 9 MARTIN O’MALLEY, 10 Defendant. 11 Pending before the Court is a stipulation to award Plaintiff $6,100 in attorneys’ fees 12 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). Docket No. 21. 13 Although Plaintiff’s fee request is not opposed, the Court has an independent obligation to 14 review the reasonableness of the fee award. See, e.g., Bradley V. v. Kijakazi, 2021 WL 4554108, 15 at *1-3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2021); Atunez v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 2017 WL 4075830, at *2 16 (D. Ariz. Sept. 13, 2017); Keyser v. Astrue, 2012 WL 78461, at *3 (D. Ore. Jan. 10, 2012); Lucas 17 v. White, 63 F. Supp. 2d 1046, 1060 (N.D. Cal. 1999). Fees awarded under the EAJA are 18 determined based on the lodestar approach, except that the hourly rates are capped unless the Court 19 in its discretion determines otherwise. See Costa v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 690 F.3d 1132, 20 1135 (9th Cir. 2012); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). Supporting the hourly rate for lodestar 21 purposes requires the presentation of evidence “that the requested rates are in line with those 22 prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, 23 experience and reputation.” Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984). The Ninth Circuit 24 has held that “rate determinations in other cases [in that community], particularly those setting a 25 rate for the [specific] attorney[s]” at issue, provide satisfactory evidence as to the prevailing hourly 26 rate. United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 1990). The 27 Court may also rely on its own familiarity with the prevailing rates. Ingram v. Oroudjian, 647 28 F.3d 925, 928 (9th Cir. 2011). 1 The hourly rates sought by Attorney Kalagian and Attorney Perales are in accordance with 2|| those the Court has awarded to them in other cases. See, e.g., Hengpo C. v. O'Malley, Case No. 2:23-cv-01961-NJK, Docket No. 19 (D. Nev. July 1, 2024). Moreover, the hours documented by counsel appear to be reasonable. See Docket No. 21-2 at 1-2.! 5 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the stipulation to award Plaintiff $6,100 in attorneys’ 6] fees pursuant to the EAJA. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED 8 Dated: October 21, 2024 A. 10 Unite Strats strate Judge Bis g 11 . 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26], ————— ' The attorney time expended accounts for the bulk of the fees being sought. While it 27|| appears that there might be some deductions warranted as to the paralegal portion of the request, the fee amount sought would remain reasonable even were the Court to adjust the paralegal 28] amounts downward. See Docket No. 21-2 at 2 (reflecting total fee amount of $6,162.29).