Legal Opinion

Martinez v. Social Security

District Court, D. Nevada

Decided July 1, 2024No. 2:23-cv-00382Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 ROBIN M., Case No. 2:23-cv-00382-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 9 v. [Docket No. 21] 10 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is a stipulation for attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Equal Access 13 to Justice Act (“EAJA”), as well as for costs. Docket No. 21. 14 Fees are determined based on the lodestar approach by which the hours reasonably 15 expended are multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate, except that in the EAJA context the hourly 16 rates are capped unless the Court in its discretion determines otherwise.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Costa v. Commissioner of Social Security AdministrationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
  3. Nadarajah v. HolderCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
  4. Ingram v. OroudjianCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
  5. Daniel Vargas v. Amber HowellCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API