1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 ALLAN ROBERT GOODMAN, Case No. 2:22-cv-00300-NJK

8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 9 v. [Docket No. 16] 10 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is a stipulation to award Plaintiff attorney’s fees pursuant to the 13 Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). Docket No. 16. 14 The Court has an independent obligation to consider the reasonableness of the amount of 15 fees sought under the EAJA regardless of whether the request is opposed. Douzat v. Saul, 2020

, at *1 (D. Nev. June 11, 2020) (collecting cases). Fees awarded under the EAJA are 17 determined based on the lodestar approach, except that the hourly rates are capped unless the Court 18 in its discretion determines otherwise. See Costa v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin.,

, 19 1135 (9th Cir. 2012); see also

(d)(2)(A). Hence, a review of a fee request requires 20 appropriate documentation to conduct the lodestar analysis, along with a showing regarding the 21 hourly rates sought to the extent they exceed the cap imposed by Congress. See, e.g., Douzat, 22

, at *2-4. When such information has not been provided, the fee request may 23 be denied without prejudice so that such information can be presented to the Court in a renewed 24 request. See Fischer v. SJB-P.D., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2000).1 25 26 1 The Court in its discretion may also “simply reduce[] the fee to a reasonable amount” 27 when it is not provided appropriate documentation.

Although the Court is providing a further opportunity to support the fee request with appropriate documentation by issuing this order, it may 28 not do so again in the event any renewed request is not sufficiently supported. ] The instant stipulation does not identify the hours expended by counsel,” does not identify 2|| the hourly rate being sought, and does not provide documentation or argument supporting the 3 reasonableness of either. The stipulation similarly fails to provide any supporting information or argument as to the costs that Plaintiff seeks to recover. 5 Accordingly, the stipulation is DENIED without prejudice. Any renewed request must 6] include appropriate paperwork as to the hours worked and the rates being sought, as well as meaningful discussion on the reasonableness of both. Any renewed request must be filed by July 8] 6, 2022. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED 10 Dated: June 22, 2022 i 7 Sing a 12 Unite ooh agistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

? The stipulation indicates that an exhibit was attached with counsel’s itemized hours, 28]| Docket No. 16 at 4, but no such exhibit was provided.