F OR P UBLICATION



### UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT

V O R T E X M A R

I N E C ON S T R U C T I ON , employ er; S I G N A L M U T U

A L I N D E M N I T Y A S S O C I A T I ON , I nsurance Carrier, Petitioners
,

v.

T E R R Y G R I M M ; G E

N E R A L C ON S T R U C T I ON C O M P A

N Y ; S T

. P A U L F I R E A N D M A R

I N E I N S U R A N C E C O M P A

N Y ; D I R E C T O R , O F F I C E O F W O R K E R S ’ C O M P E

N S A T I O N P R O G R A M ; U.S. D E P A R

T M E N T O F L A B O R , Respondents. No. 15-72258

B RB No. 14-0323

O RDER

F iled December 22, 2017

B efore: Michael Daly

Hawkins, Marsha S. B erz on, and Andrew D. Hurwitz , Circuit J udg esV O R T E X M A R

I N E C O N S T R

U C T I O N V

. G R

I M M 2

SUMMARY *

A ttorneys’ F ees/Benef

its Review Board

The panel uphe l d the Appellate Commissioner’s order awarding attorney s’ fees and costs for a p etition for r e view in the amount of $32,280 in favor of T e r r y Grimm and ag ainst Vortex Marine Construction a nd Sig n al Mutual I ndemnity Associati o n, a

nd amending the mandate; and awarded attorney s’ fees for the fee litig a tion in the amount of $20,060 i n f a v or of Terry Grimm and ag ainst Vortex Marine a n d Sig nal Mutual.

After Vortex Marine and Sig nal Mutual dis m i s sed a petition for review o f a decision of the B enefits Review B oard, the panel g ranted G rimm’s motion for an award o f attorney s’ f

e es on r eview and referred the determination o f an appropri at e amount of fees on review to the Appellate C o mmissioner, and also referred to the Appellate Commissioner for a report and recommendation on Grimm’s supplemental a ttorney s’ fees motion, inc l u ding the issue o f entitlement to fees for defending the fee application.

I n its order, t h e p anel ag reed w ith the Appellate Commissioner that B a ker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC
, 1 3 5 S. Ct. 2158, 2168 (2015), did n ot prevent an awar d o f attorney ’s fees for the fee litig ation under the L o n g shore a nd Harbor W orkers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 928(a). The p anel n oted that under fee-shifting statutes, like § 928(a)

o f the L ong shore Act, courts uniformly decline to trea t

* T h is su m m ary co n stitu

tes n o p art o f th e o pin io n o f th e co urt. It h as b eenp rep ared b y

co urt staf

f f o r th e co n v en i en ce o f

th e read er.V O R T E X M A R

I N E C O N S T R

U C T I O N V

. G R

I M M 3

f e e

– a p p l i c a t i o n a n d f

e e

- l i t i g a t i o n w o r k d i f f e r e n t l y

. According ly
, the panel upheld the Appellate Commissioner’s order awarding attorney s’ fees and costs for t h e p e tition for review; and awarded attorney s’ fees f o r t he fee litig ation in the amount of $20,060 in favor of Grimm and ag ainst Vortex Marine Construction and Sig nal Mutual I ndemnity Association.

COUNSEL

J ames P. A leccia, A leccia & Mitani, L ong B e ach, California, for Petitioners.

Eric A

. Dupree and Paul R. Mey ers, Dupree L aw aplc, Coronado, California; J oshua T. G i llelan I I
, L ong shore Claimants’ National L aw Center, W ashing ton, D

. C.; for Respondent Terry Grimm.

ORDER

After Vortex M a r ine Construction and Sig nal Mutual I ndemnity Association dismissed the petition for review, we g ranted Terry Grimm’s motion for a n award of attorney s’ fees o n review and referred t h e determination of an appropriate amount of fees on revie w t o the Appellate Commissioner. See 9 th Cir. R. 3 9

- 1

. 9

. W e a lso referred to the Appellate Commissioner for a report and r e c o m m e n d a t i on Grimm’s supplemental a ttorney ’ s fees motion, including the issue o f entitlement to fees for defending the fee application. The Appellate Commissioner a wa rded Grimm’s attorney s’ fees and c osts f

o r t h e petition for review in the amount o fV O R T E X M A R

I N E C O N S T R

U C T I O N V

. G R

I M M 4

$32,280, and recommen d e d that we a ward Grimm’s attorney s’ fees for the fee litig ation in the amount of $20,060.

The parties h av e not requ e s ted reconsideration of the Appellate Commissioner’s order or objected to the Appellate Commissioner’s report and recommendation. W e a g ree with the Appellate Commi s s i o ner’s determination that Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC
, 135 S. Ct. 2158, 2168 (2015), does not prevent an award of attor n e y s ’ fees for the fee litig ation h e r e u n d e r t h e Lo n gs h o r e a n d H a r b o r W o rk e rs ’ Compensation Act (“L H W C A ”), 33 U.S.C. § 928(a). I n Baker Botts
, the court held that the tex t of § 330(a)(1) of the B ankruptcy C o d e does not shift the costs o f adversarial litig ation from one side to the other, and it does not displace the American Rule with respect to f ee-defense litig ation. See id. at 2165–67; see also Mi c h a v

. S un Life Assurance of Canada, Inc.
, 874 F .3d 1052, 1062 n. 2 ( 9th Cir. 2 017) (B erz on, J
., concurring ). B ut § 928( a ) o f t h e L HW CA is a fee-shifting

statute that departs from the American Rule and

e x plicitly shifts to the employ er or carrier the responsibility for pay ment of a reasonable fee for attorney services for the adversarial litig ation if the claima nt successfully p rosecutes the claim. See Shirrod v. D ir., OW CP
, 809 F .3d 1082, 1084, 1086 (9th Cir. 2015); see also Baker Botts
, 1 3 5 S

. C t. at 2164–65, 2167–68. U nder fee-shifting statutes like § 928(a), courts have uniformly d e c lined to treat fee-application a nd fee-litig ation work differently
, a n d have consistently held that ti me spent e stablishing the entitlement to and amount of the fee is compensable. See Baker Botts
, 135 S. Ct. a t 2167–68 (citing Comm’r, INS v

. Jean
, 496 U .S. 154, 158, 162 (1990)); Blixseth v. Y

ellowstone Mtn. Club
, 854 F .3d 626, 629, 631–32 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing I

n re S

. Cal. Sunbelt Developers, Inc.
, 608 F .3d 456, 462–64 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2010)).V O R T E X M A R

I N E C O N S T R

U C T I O N V

. G R

I M M 5

Thus, the Appellate Commissioner’s order aw a rding attorney s’ f

e e s a n d costs f

or the petition for review in the amount of $32,28 0 in f

avor of Terry Grimm and ag ainst Vortex Marine Construction a nd Sig n al Mutual Indem nity Association, and amendin g t h e mandate, remains in effect. A ccording ly
, w e h ereby award attorney s’ f ees f o r the fee litig ation in the amount of $20,060 in favor of T erry Grimm and ag ainst Vortex Marine Construction and Sig nal Mutual I ndemnity Associa t i o n

. This o r der amends the court’s mandate.