NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIE DOLORES DORAME,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. MARTIN J. O'MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant

- Appellee. No. 23

- 15720
D.C. No. 4:20

- cv - 00285

- JAS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James Alan Soto, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 3, 2024 * * Phoenix, Arizona Before: HAWKINS, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Partial D issent by Judge BYBEE. Marie Dolores Dorame (“Dorame”) appeals the district court’s order awarding $13,381.31 in attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act after she succeeded in her underlying claims for social security benefits. The amount awarded

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 5 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

was approximately $2000 less than originally requested. We review the district
court’s fee award for an abuse of discretion

. Le v. Astrue , 529 F.3d 1200, 1201 (9th Cir. 2008). The district court found “merit in Defendant’s objections,” implicitly accepting the Commissioner’s objection that a specific nine hours of work was duplicative and reducing the corresponding fee award by nine hours. Although this explanation is not a picture of clarity, we can discern the court’s rationale , and we
have also held that minor reductions such as this do not require a detailed explanation by the court. Moreno v. City of Sacramento , 534 F.3d 1106, 111 1 (9th Cir. 2008). However, the district court’s order does not address the additional fees Dorame requested for time spent on the EAJA fee litigation itself. “ Fees on fees ” are permitted, Thompson v. Gomez , 45 F.3d 1365, 1367 (9th Cir. 1995), and here , counsel was completely successful on the merits and received the vast majority of
the fee a ward originally requested. We , therefore , remand with instructions for the
district court to increase the fee award by the additional amount requested in
Dorame’s Reply to Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice. [Dist. Ct. Dkt. #53 at 8

- 9]. AFFIRMED IN PART, REMANDED IN PART. Each party to bear its own costs on appeal.1 Dorame v. O’Malley , No. 23

- 15720 BYBEE, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part: I agree with the panel’s decision to remand for the district court to increase
Plaintiff’s fee award commensurate with the amount of time spent on the EAJA fee litigation. However, I disagree that the court sufficiently explained its decision to write off the nine hours that Defendant claimed were duplicative. Defendant’s principal assertion is that one of Plaintiff’s attorneys over

- billed by nine hours for the time he spent reviewing the work of another attorney. With a record exceeding 5,000 pages of medical information, that does not strike me as u nreasonable. Nevertheless, the district court “f[ound] merit in Defendant’s objections.” The majority correctly observes that we have h eld “minor reductions such as” the nine

hour write

- down here “do not require a detailed explanation.” But they do require

some explanation

. Moren o v. City of Sacramento , 534 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2008). Stating that one side has it right is no explanation at all

— it is merely a conclusion. S ince the district court gave no greater rationale for the nine

- hour
reductio n than it did the EAJA fee

- litigation reduction, I would remand for the court to furnish the minimal explanation required by our precedents. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. 

# FILED

APR 5 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS