T hi s di s pos i t i on i s nota ppr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y f i nds thi s c a s e s ui t a bl e f

orde c i s i on w i thout ** o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

T he H on orabl e E dw ar d R . K orm an, U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctJudg e, *** E a s t e r n D i s tr i c tof

N e w Y or k, s i t t i ng by de s i gna t i on. 1 NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T E NR I QU E T A G ARNI C A, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. M I C H A E L J . A S T R U E , C om m i s s i one rof S o ci al S ecu ri ty, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 07- 56878 D. C . No . C V- 0 3 - 0 7 8 8 9 - AG R ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o r n ia A l i c i a G . R os e nbe r g, M a gi s tr a t e J udge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i t t e d M a y 4, 2010 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o r n ia B e f o r e : C L I F T ON a n d B YB E E , C i r c u i tJ u d g e s , a n d KO R MAN, D i stri ctJudg e. *** 

# FI LED

MA Y06 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

E n r iq u e ta G a r n ic a ( “G a r n ic a ” ) f ile d a n a p p lic a tio n f

o rS o c ia l S e c u r ity D i sabi l i ty ( “ S S D ”) and S up pl em ent al S ecu rity In com e ( “ S S I” ) benefi t s und erT i t l es II and X V I of the S oci al S ec uri ty A ct . A ft er G arni ca ’ s appl i ca t i on w as deni ed by an A d m in is tr a tiv e L a w J u d g e a n d h e rr e q u e s t f o rr e v ie w w a s d e n ie d b y th e A p p e a ls C ou nci l , the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt for the C entra l D i stri ct of C al i forni a a ff i rm ed wh a tth e n b e c a m e th e f i n a l j u d g m e n to f

th e Co mm i s s i o n e r . I n a 2 - 1 d e c i s i o n , we r e m a n d e d th e c a s e f

o rf u r th e ra d m in is tr a tiv e p r o c e e d in g s . G ar ni c a v . A s tr ue , 2 3 8 F. A p p x . 2 5 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . B ec ause an appl i ca ntfor di sabi l i ty benefit s p re vai l s a gai nstthe U ni t ed S t at es i f the deni al of benefi t s i s r ever se d and re m anded for rehea ri ng pu rs uantt o sent ence f ourof 42 U . S . C . § 405( g) , r e ga r dl e s s of w he the rbe nefi t s a r e ul t i m a t e l y a w a r de d, Sh alala v . Sc ha e

f er , 509 U . S . 292, 300- 301 ( 1993) , G a r ni c a f i l e d a m ot i on i n the di s tr i c tc our tf

ora t t or ne y s ’ f

e e s unde rthe E qua l A c c e s s t o J us t i c e A c t( “ E A J A ” ) , 28 U . S . C . § 2412, pr i ort o the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve pr oc e e di ngs on r e m a nd. T he di s tr i c tj udge i ni t i a l l y de ni e d he r mot i on a f t e r f i nd i ng tha t the Comm i s s i on e r ’ s po s i t i on w as

“ subst ant i al l y j ust i fi ed” because the C om m i ss i on erhad p re vai l ed i n t he di stri ctcourt a nd the r e ve r s a l by the C our tof A ppe a l s w a s a s pl i tde c i s i on. G a r ni c a f i l e d a m ot i on t o a l t e r ora m e nd the j udgm e nt , w hi c h the di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d a f t e ra l s o c ons i de r i ng the C om m i s s i one r ’ s pos i t i on w i th r e s pe c tt o e a c h of the gr o u nds tha tpr ovi de d the3

b asi s fo r th e rev ersal . G arn i ca ap p eal s b o th o rd ers. T he E A JA prov i des thata di stri ctcourtshal l aw ar d at t orneys fe es t o a party that pr e va i l s a ga i ns tthe U ni t e d S t a t e s unl e s s “ the c our tf i nds tha tthe pos i t i on of the U ni t ed S t at es w as subst ant i al l y j ust i fi ed or thatspec i al ci rc um st ance s m ake a n aw ar d un j ust . ” 28 U . S . C . § 2412( d) ( 1) ( A ) . W hi l e t h e C o m m i s s i one rha s the bur de n of p r o v in g s u b s ta n tia l ju s tif ic a tio n , Kal iv. B ow en , 854 F . 2d 329, 332 ( 9th C i r . 1988) , the d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d en i al o f at t o rn eys’ fees u n d er th e E A JA i s r e v i ew ed u n d er an ab u se o f d is c r e tio n s ta n d a r d , C orbi n v. Apf el , 149 F . 3d 1051, 1052 ( 9th C i r . 1 9 9 8 ) . T he di s tr i c tc our t abus e s i t s di s c r e t i on w he n i t s “ de c i s i on i s ba s e d on a n e r r one ous c o n c lu s io n o f

la w o rw h e n th e r e c o r d c o n ta in s n o e v id e n c e o n w h ic h it r a tio n a lly coul d h ave bas ed thatdeci si on . ” Ka li, 854 F . 2d a t331 ( a l t e r a t i on a nd quot a t i on m a r ks om i t t ed). T hi s i s a “ hi gh l y d ef er ent i al st andard, and w e m ay no tsubst i tut e our vi ew o f w h a t c o n s titu te s s u b s ta n tia l ju s tif ic a tio n f o r th a t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t; o u r r e v ie w is l i m i t ed t o ass uri ng thatthe di stri ct court ’ s d et er m i nat i on has a basi s i n re as on . ” B ay A re a P ea ce N

avy v . U ni t ed St at es , 91 4 F . 2d 12 24 , 12 30 (9th C i r. 19 90 ) ( i nt ernal c ita tio n a n d q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itte d ) . T he di stri ctj ud ge’ s dec i si on cl ea rl y has a b as i s i n rea son. T he C om m i ss i on er i ni t i al l y pre vai l ed i n t he di stri ctcourt . W hi l e the j ud g m en t o f the di stri ctcourtw as re vers ed, i t w as by a 2-1 dec i si on ov er a re as on ed di ss ent i ng op i ni on by Judg e R ym er .4

T h e s e a r e b o th h ig h ly r e le v a n t f a c to r s u p o n w h ic h th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly r e lie d in exer ci si ng i t s di sc re t i on . Indeed, w e have hel d t hatthe fa cttha t th e C om m i ss i on er p rev ai l ed i n th e d i s tr ictco u rtm ay ap p ro p ri at el y b e co n si d ered as p arto f th e E A JA a n a ly s is . S ee L ew is v. B a rn h a rt , 2 8 1 F .3 d 1 0 8 1 , 1 0 8 4 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) . Mo r e o v e r , we have hel d t hat a spl i t panel deci si on “ re gardi ng the m er i t s of the go vernm ent ’ s app ea l further s ug gest s thata f i nd i ng of substan ti al j ust i fi ca t i on i s app ropri at e. ” B ay A re a P eace N avy , 9 1 4 F .2 d a t 1 2 3 1 ; s e e al s o G onz al e s v . Fr e e Spe e c h C oal i t i on , 408 F . 3d 6 1 3 , 6 1 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . B ec ause these fa ct ors a re no tnece ss ar i l y c on cl usi ve, w e have al so consi dere d the C om m i s s i one r ’ s pos i t i on w i th r e s pe c t t o e a c h of the gr ounds tha t pr ovi de d the ba s i s fo r the r e ve r s a l of the C om m i s s i one r ’ s r e j e c t i on of

G a r ni c a ’ s a ppl i c a t i on f or S S D an d S S I b en ef

it s, an d w e c o n clu d e th at o u r in it ial rev er sa l o f th e d istrict co u rt’s a f f ir m a n c e o f

th e d e n ia l o f

b e n e f its d e c id e d a c lo s e c a s e a b o u t w h ic h “‘r e a s o n a b le m i nds ’ c oul d a nd di d di ff er . ” Fr e e Spe e c h C oal i t i on , 4 0 8 F . 3 d at6 2 1 . C o n seq u en t l y, th e d istrict co u rt d id n o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n in c o n clu d in g th at th e C o m m issio n er ’s p o s itio n s w e r e s u b s ta n tia lly ju s tif ie d . AF F I R ME D.