Orn v. Astrue
Citation | 511 F.3d 1217 |
Decision Date | 09 January 2008 |
Docket Number | No. 05-16181.,05-16181. |
Parties | Leo ORN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE,<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Manuel D. Serpa, Esq., Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Kimberly Anne Gaab, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, Maria V. Daquipa, Esq., Sarah Ryan, Esq., Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: MARY M. SCHROEDER, STEPHEN S. TROTT and WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
On July 16, 2007, we issued an opinion reversing the Commissioner of Social Security's decision to deny Leo Orn social security disability benefits and remanded to the district court with instructions to remand to the Commissioner for calculation of benefits. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 640 (9th Cir.2007). Orn filed a timely application in this court under the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA" or "the Act") for attorney's fees and costs incurred in pursuing his appeal. The Commissioner opposed Orn's application, contending that this court does not have authority under the Act to award attorney's fees and costs. We disagree with the Commissioner.
EAJA provides, in relevant part:
Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other expenses, in addition to any costs awarded pursuant to subsection (a), incurred by that party in any civil action (other than in cases sounding in tort), including proceedings for judicial review of agency action, brought by or against the United States in any court having jurisdiction of that action, unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.
28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) (emphasis added). In addition, the Act provides that "a court may award reasonable fees and expenses of attorneys, in addition to . . . costs . . ., to the prevailing party in any civil action brought by or against . . . any agency or any official of the United States . . . in any court having jurisdiction of such action." § 2412(b); see also § 2412(a)(1) (costs). The Act does not define "court" beyond stating that the term "includes the United States Court of Federal Claims and the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims." § 2412(d)(2)(F).
The Commissioner contends that the proper court in which to file an EAJA application is the district court, regardless of whether the attorney's fees and costs were incurred in the district court or on appeal. In support of his contention, the Commissioner quotes a statement by the Supreme Court in Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 559, 108 S.Ct. 2541, 101 L.Ed.2d 490 (1988), that "the determination [of eligibility for EAJA fees] is for the district court to make." See also Corbin v. Apfel, 149 F.3d 1051, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 1998); Williams v. Bowen, 966 F.2d 1259, 1260-61 (9th Cir.1991); Pirus v. Bowen, 869 F.2d 536, 539 (9th Cir.1989); Kali v. Bowen, 854 F.2d 329, 330 (9th Cir.1988). However, in the cases cited by the Commissioner, including Underwood, the prevailing party moved in the district court for an award of fees. Thus it is natural (but not particularly significant) to state in such cases, as the Court did in Underwood, that the district court should determine the award. The Commissioner has cited no case in which a court has held, or even stated, that district courts have exclusive authority to award fees and costs under EAJA.
In a number of cases, courts of appeals have entertained applications for attorney's fees and costs, including applications under EAJA. See Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 754, 755-56, 100 S.Ct. 1987, 64 L.Ed.2d 670 (1980) (per curiam) ( ); Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 693, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 57 L.Ed.2d 522 (1978) ( ); Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870, 874-76 (9th Cir. 2005) ( ); Cummings v. Connell, 402 F.3d 936, 947-48 (9th Cir.2005) (as amended) (request for appellate attorney's fees under § 1988 must be filed in the court of appeals, and reversing a district court award of appellate fees because the fee motion was filed in the district court) that a ; Pottgieser v. Kizer, 906 F.2d 1319, 1324 (9th Cir.1990) ( ); Se. Legal Def. Group v. Adams, 657 F.2d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir.1981) ( ); Perkins v. Standard Oil Co., 474 F.2d 549, 551 n. 2 (9th Cir.1973), vacated on other grounds, 399 U.S. 222, 90 S.Ct. 1989, 26 L.Ed.2d 534 (1970) (per curiam) ( ); id. at 555 ( ); cf. Yaron v. Twp. of Northampton, 963 F.2d 33, 34 (3d Cir.1992) (); McCarthy v. Bowen, 824 F.2d 182, 183 (2d Cir.1987) (per curiam) ( ).
The most obvious reading of EAJA is that a court of appeals may make an award of attorney's fees and costs. EAJA provides that "a court" shall award fees and expenses if the other requirements of the statute are fulfilled. When EAJA authorizes "a court" to award fees and costs incurred in "any civil action . . . brought by or against the United States in any court having jurisdiction of that action," the term "court" is not limited to the district court. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Further, the statute expressly includes in its definition of "court" two Article I courts, one of which, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, is an appellate court. § 2412(d)(2)(F).
Our Circuit Rules are consistent with this reading of the Act. Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1 sets forth the procedures and rules for making requests for EAJA attorney's fees and costs:
Absent a statutory provision to the contrary, a request for attorneys fees, including a request for attorneys fees and expenses in administrative agency adjudications under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(3), shall be filed with the Clerk, with proof of service, within 14 days from the expiration of the period within which a petition for rehearing or suggestion for rehearing en banc may be filed, unless a timely petition for rehearing or suggestion for rehearing en banc is filed. If a timely petition for rehearing or a suggestion for rehearing en banc is filed, a request for attorneys fees shall be filed within 14 days after the court's disposition of such petition or suggestion. The request must be filed separately from any cost bill.
A request for an award of attorneys fees must be supported by a memorandum showing that the party seeking fees is legally entitled to them and must be accompanied by Form 9 (appended to these rules) or a document that contains substantially the same information, along with: (a) a detailed itemization of the tasks performed [on] each date and the amount of time spent by each lawyer and paralegal on each task; (b) a showing that the hourly rates claimed are the prevailing rates in the relevant market; and (c) an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the information submitted.
9th Cir. R. 39-1.6. This rule presumes that we may hear requests for EAJA fees and expenses in the first instance.
Further, in 1994 this court created the position of Appellate Commissioner, a magistrate-level judicial officer who, among other things, specializes in resolving contested fee issues:
When the court has awarded attorneys' fees on appeal or on application for extraordinary writ, and a party objects to the amount of attorneys' fees requested by the prevailing party, the court may refer to the Appellate Commissioner the determination of an appropriate amount of attorneys' fees. The court may direct the Appellate Commissioner to make a recommendation to the court or to issue an order awarding attorneys' fees. Any such order issued by the Appellate Commissioner is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wasniewski v. Grzelak-Johannsen
...other tribunals should first be presented to those courts. See McCarthy v. Bowen, 824 F.2d 182, 183 (2nd Cir.1987); Orn v. Astrue, 511 F.3d 1217, 1218-21 (9th Cir. 2008).9 It would be improper for the district court to resolve the question in the first instance whether the fees incurred for......
-
Seachris v. Brady-Hamilton Stevedore Co.
...Rule 39-1.9. Such decisions do not constitute circuit precedent but may be treated as persuasive authority. See Orn v. Astrue , 511 F.3d 1217, 1220 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting the Appellate Commissioner's "substantial experience and expertise in ruling on appellate fee requests").4 See also Pet......
-
Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians v. California
...conditions are met. We thus consider whether the Tribes are entitled to appellate attorneys' fees. See 9th Cir. R. 39-1.6; Orn v. Astrue, 511 F.3d 1217, 1218-19 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). II A California first argues that sovereign immunity bars the Tribes' request for a fee award. See S......
-
Discover Bank v. Warren (In re Re)
...(holding determination of fees for appellate work should be done by the district court in the first instance), withOrn v. Astrue, 511 F.3d 1217, 1220 (9th Cir.2008) ( “Taken as a whole, our rules recognize the propriety of this court considering a request for EAJA attorney's fees and costs ......
-
Attorney's Fees
...filed in the district court. However, circuit law may permit, but not require, filing in the appellate court. See Orn v. Astrue , 511 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2008) (allowing filing directly with the appellate court). §780 SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY PRACTICE 7-76 supporting a motion for judgment......
-
Attorney's Fees
...filed in the district court. However, circuit law may permit, but not require, filing in the appellate court. See Orn v. Astrue , 511 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2008) (allowing filing directly with the appellate court). §780 SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY PRACTICE 7-76 supporting a motion for judgment......
-
Table of Cases
...v. Heckler , 776 F.2d 209, 214-15 (7th Cir. 1985), § 312.3 Orn v. Astrue , 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. July 16, 2007), 9th-07 Orn v. Astrue, 511 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2008), 9th-08 Orpiano v. Johnson , 687 F.2d 44, 48 (4th Cir. 1982), § 604.6 Orr v. Chater , 956 F. Supp. 861, 870 (N.D. Iow......
-
Case Index
...for EAJA Fees § 702.3. EAJA Pleading Requirements Hackett v. Barnhart , 475 F.3d 1166 (10th Cir. Jan. 17, 2007), 10th-07 Orn v. Astrue , 511 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2008), 9th-08 Scarborough v. Principi , 541 U.S. 401, 124 S.Ct. 1856, 158 L.Ed.2d 674 (2004), U.S. Supreme Court-04 Single......