United States v. 2020-02-18 | 19-70397 | ANGELA AGUILAR V. NAVY EXCHANGE SERVICE COMMAND | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANGELA C. AGUILAR,
Petitioner,
v.
NAVY EXCHANGE SERVICE
COMMAND; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
PROGRAMS,
Respondents.
No. 19-70397
BRB No. 18-0327
MEMORANDUM
*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Benefits Review Board
Submitted February 4, 2020
**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: FARRIS, McKEOWN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Angela Aguilar seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s
order denying reconsideration of an Administrative Law Judge’s attorney’s fees
FILED
FEB 18 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
*
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).

award. We review the ALJ’s selection of a geographic area as the “relevant
community” in calculating attorney’s fees for abuse of discretion, and we do not
overturn that selection if it is “adequately justified and supported by substantial
evidence.” Shirrod v. Director, OWCP, 809 F.3d 1082, 1087, 1088 n.5 (9th Cir.
2015) (citing Christensen v. Stevedoring Servs. of Am., 557 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th
Cir. 2009)). We deny the petition for review.
An attorney’s hourly rate is calculated based on prevailing market rates in
the relevant community. Id. at 1086 (quoting Christensen, 557 F.3d at 1053). In
Shirrod, we explicitly declined to impose a bright line rule defining the relevant
community in Longshore Act cases, leaving it instead to the ALJ and Board to
determine the relevant community on an individualized basis. 809 F.3d at 1088
n.5. That decision shall stand “as long as [it] is adequately justified and supported
by substantial evidence.” Id.
Here, the hearing took place in Honolulu at Aguilar’s request. Aguilar lived
in Hawai’i, worked there, was injured on the job there, and received medical
treatment there. Her counsel’s website indicates that he maintains an office in
2

Honolulu. It was not error to consider Hawai’i to be the relevant community when
calculating attorney’s fees.
1
Even if the ALJ erred by raising her concerns regarding the relevant
community for the calculation of attorney’s fees without notice, we may overturn
that decision “only if it reasonably can be concluded that absent such error there
would have been a contrary result.” Haw. Stevedores, Inc. v. Ogawa, 608 F.3d 642,
648 (9th Cir. 2010). It is unreasonable to conclude that with notice and the
opportunity to respond, the ultimate fee award would have been different.
The ALJ did not err by denying Aguilar’s request for costs. NEXCOM
objected to Aguilar’s lack of documentation regarding costs. Aguilar had one year
and eight months to respond to that objection, and she did not. There is no
requirement that an ALJ give notice that some documentation of requested costs is
necessary. The award was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.
DENIED.
1
Aguilar fails to persuade the court that other competent counsel was
unavailable for this case in Hawai’i. See Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392,
1405 (9th Cir. 1992).
3