N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M ARR ITA TR

UJILLO, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. NANC Y A. B ERR

YHILL, Ac ting C om m issione r Soc ia l Se c urity , De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 14-35895 D.C . No. 3:13-C V-00620-SI M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M ic h a e l H. Sim on, Distric t C ourt Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Nove m

be r 7, 2017 ** B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd TR OTT a

nd SILVER

M AN, C irc uit Judge s. M arrita Trujillo a ppe a ls thedistric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing he r m otion for attorne y s’ fe e s unde r the Equa l Ac c e ss to Justic e Ac t (“ EAJA” ) in he r a c tion for judic ia l re vie w of the C om m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity ’ s de n ia l of he r a pplic ation 

# FIL ED N OV 09 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).for disa

bility insura nc e be ne fits unde r Title II of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t, whic h the distric t c o urt re ve rse d a

nd re m ande d for furthe r proc e e dings. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a nd 42 U.S.C . § 405(g), a

n d we a ffirm . W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing a m otion for a ttorne y s’ fe e s unde r the EAJA for a

n a buse of disc re tion. De c k

e r v . Be rry hill , 856 F.3d 659, 663 (9th C ir. 2017). A district c ourt “ a buse s its disc re tion whe n it fa i ls to a pply the c orre c t le ga l rule or its a

pplic at ion of thec orre c t le ga l rule is illogic a l, im pla usible or without support in infe re nc e s tha t m ay be drawn from

the fa c ts in there c ord.” Id. The EAJA provide s tha t “ a c ourt sha l l a

ward to a pre va iling pa

rty othe r tha n the U nite d State s fe e s . . . inc urre d by tha t pa rty in a ny c ivil a c tion . . . brought by or a ga inst theUnite d State s . . . unle ss the c ourt finds tha t the position of the Unite d State s wa s substa

ntia lly justifie d.” 28 U.S.C . § 2412(d)(1)(A). The gove rnm e nt be a

rs the burde n of de m onstra ting tha t both its litiga

tion position a

nd its position in the

a ge nc y a c tion underly ing thelitiga tion we re substa

ntia lly justifie d. De c k

e r , 856 F.3d a

t 664; Gardne r v . Be rry hill , 856 F.3d 652, 656 (9th C ir. 2017). Substa

ntia l justific ation m e ans “ justifie d to a

de gre e tha

t c ould sa tisfy a re a s ona ble pe rson,” Gardne r , 856 F.3d a t 656, a nd inc lude s situa

tions in which

“ re a sona ble pe ople c ould diffe r a s to thea ppropria t e ne ss of thec onte ste d a c tion, 2Pie rc ev . Unde r w ood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988). To be substa ntia lly justifie d, the gove rnm e nt’ s position m

ust ha v e a “ re a sona ble ba sis both in la

w a n d in fa c t.” De c k e r , 856 F.3d a

t 664. In ruling on Trujillo’ s m otion for a ttorne y s ’ fe e s, the distric t c ourt did not a buse i ts disc re tion in finding the a ge nc y de c ision in this c a se wa s substa ntia lly justifie d. Although Trujillo a rgue s tha t the DOT’ s inc lusion of the la ngua ge “ one or two-step instruc tions”in thede finition of Re a soning Le ve l One m e ant the ALJ wa s re quire d to find the

DOT a nd the voc ationa l e xpe rt’ s te stim o ny that Trujillo c ould pe rform R e a soning Le v e l 2 jobs c onflic te d, tha t c o nc lusion wa s not ine v ita ble . As thedistric t c ourt note d, the DOT re a soning le ve ls do not ne c e ssa rily c orre spond with the

func tiona l limita

tions a s de fine d by

the Soc ia l Se c urity Adm inistra

tion, a n d no binding pre c e de nt e xiste d on this issue at the tim e the ALJ re nde re d the de c ision on Trujillo’ s a pplic ation for be ne fits. In a ddition, district c ourt opinions diffe

ring a s to whe the r this phra se is inc onsiste nt with DOT’ s Le ve l Two R e a soning pa

ram e te rs illustra

te tha t the c onflic t wa s not ne c e ssa rily a ppa re nt. C ompare , e .g., Murray

v . C o lv in , No. C -13-01182 DM R , 2014 WL 1396408, a t *10 (N.D. C a l. Apr. 10, 2014) (finding no c o nflic t) w ith C h asev . C olv in , No. 06:12-c v-01857-HZ, 2013 W L 5567082, a

t *4-5 (D. Or. Oc t. 9, 2013) (finding c onflic t e xists). B e c a

use a re a sona ble pe rson c ould ha

v e c onc lude d tha

t the ALJ 3did not e rr in finding the voc ationa l e xpe rt’ s te stim ony and the DOT did not c onflic t, the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion whe n it c onc lude d tha t the unde rly ing a ge n c y

a c tion wa s substa

ntia l ly justifie d. Se e Gardne r , 856 F.3d a t 656; Pie rc e , 487 U.S. a

t 565. The distric t c ourt a l so did not a buse its disc re tion in finding tha t the gove rnm e nt’ s litiga

t ion position wa s substa

ntia lly justifie d . Although finding a n a ge nc y a c tion wa s not supporte d by substa ntia l e v ide nc e c an se rve a s a “ strong indic ation” tha

t t he gove rnm e nt’ s position wa s not substa ntia l ly justifie d, “ suc c e ss on the m e rits is not dispositive of a n EAJA a pplic at ion.” De c k

e r , 856 F.3d a

t 664. Furthe rm ore , the “ e x iste n c e of pre c e de nts c onstruing sim ila r sta tute s or simila

r fa c t s” is a n im porta nt fa c tor in de te rm ining whe t he r the gove rnm e nt’ s litiga tion position wa s substa

ntia lly justifie d. K

ali v . Bow e n , 854 F.2d 329, 332 (9th C ir. 1988) (c iting Pie rc e , 487 U.S. a t 566). In this c a se , in c onc luding the gove rnm e nt’ s litiga tion position was substa

ntia lly justifie d, the distric t c ourt prope rly re l ie d upon the l a c k of c ontrolling pre c e de nt a nd the inc onsiste nc y

of distric t c ourt de c isions c onc e rning whe the r a

n R FC lim ita tion to one - or two-step instruc tions a nd DOT R e a soning Le ve l Two c o nflic t. Se eid. ; De c k e r , 856 F.3d a

t 665. B e c a

use the distric t c o urt did not a

pply the inc orre c t

le ga l sta nda rd or a pply the c orre c t sta

nda rd

4in a

n illogic a l wa

y , the distric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion. De c k

e r , 856 F.3d at 663; K ali , 854 F.2d a

t 334. AFFIRM E D .

5