Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
David ORPILLA, Petitioner, v. HAWAII STEVEDORES, INCORPORATED; et al., Respondents.
MEMORANDUM **
Petitioner David Orpilla seeks review of a Department of Labor Benefits Review Board (“BRB”) order denying reconsideration of an administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) attorneys’ fees award. We have jurisdiction under 33 U.S.C. 921(c) and, reviewing the award of attorney's fees for abuse of discretion, Christensen v. Stevedoring Servs. of Am., 557 F.3d 1049, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009), deny the petition.
Orpilla argues the ALJ improperly concluded the relevant legal community for the purposes of calculating attorney's fees was Hawaii, rather than his counsel's home market of the San Francisco Bay Area, but “we leave it to the BRB, ALJs, and District Directors to determine the ‘relevant community.’ ” Shirrod v. Dir., OWCP, 809 F.3d 1082, 1088 n.5 (9th Cir. 2015). This determination was supported by substantial evidence: Orpilla, Orpilla's employer, the incident giving rise to this litigation, and the location where a hearing would have taken place are all in Hawaii. See id. at 1087.
Orpilla also contends the ALJ “only minimally acknowledged” the evidence he submitted in support of his hourly rate, instead using hourly rate calculations from a different case. But Orpilla submitted no evidence of the prevailing rates in the Hawaiian legal market, and when an applicant fails to produce this evidence, the ALJ and BRB may rely on other Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act cases “in order to ascertain a reasonable fee.” Christensen, 557 F.3d at 1055.
DENIED.
Response sent, thank you
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-72606
Decided: February 06, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)