Court Opinion

ID: 9957918
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-05 17:00:59.301199+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:16:40.411611
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 5 2024
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIE DOLORES DORAME,                           No.   23-15720

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 4:20-cv-00285-JAS

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

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   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 Dissent 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).
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, 1111 (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 award 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.

                                          2
                                                                           FILED
Dorame v. O’Malley, No. 23-15720                                             APR 5 2024
                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
BYBEE, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part:                                U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

      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 unreasonable.

Nevertheless, the district court “f[ound] merit in Defendant’s objections.” The

majority correctly observes that we have held “minor reductions such as” the nine-

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

some explanation. Moreno 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. Since the district court gave no greater rationale for the nine-hour

reduction 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.

                                           1