Diane Roxbury v. Commissioner of Social Securi , 511 F. App'x 666 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 18 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DIANE ROXBURY, No. 11-36064
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 6:08-cv-00951-HO
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security**
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael R. Hogan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 5, 2013***
Portland, Oregon
Before: TASHIMA, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, is
substituted for her predecessor pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Appellant Diane Roxbury appeals the district court’s denial of bad faith fees
and reduction of supplemental attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Equal Access to
Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2412(b) & 2412(d)(1)(A), respectively. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
1. “[A]warding fees based on bad faith is punitive and should be imposed only in
exceptional cases and for dominating reasons of justice.” Rodriguez v. United
States, 542 F.3d 704, 711 (9th Cir. 2008). The Commissioner had at least some
reason to argue for a reduction, so the Commissioner’s conduct did not constitute
an “exceptional case” where “dominating reasons of justice” required a finding of
bad faith. See id. at 711.
2. In its denial or reduction of attorneys’ fees, the district court “must explain how
it came up with the amount.” Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1111
(9th Cir. 2008). However, if “the difference between the lawyer’s request and the
court’s award is relatively small, a somewhat cursory explanation will suffice.” Id.Here, the district court adequately explained its reasoning – i.e., duplication of
hours, inefficient division of labor, and block billing – for the small fee reduction.
AFFIRMED.
2