Marie Dolores Dorame v. MARTIN J. O'MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 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).
FILED
APR 5 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

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 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --