A research starting point on federal law on reasonable attorney fees
could be the following case.
No. 01—131
SANDINE, and DONALD L. ANDERSON, PETITION-
ERS v. JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER
OF SOCIAL SECURITY
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT
[May 28, 2002]
Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the fees that may be
awarded attorneys who successfully represent Social Security benefits claimants
in court. Under 42
U.S.C. § 406(b) (1994 ed. and Supp. V),1
a prevailing claimant’s fees are payable only out of the benefits recovered;
in amount, such fees may not exceed 25 percent of past-due benefits. At issue is
a question that has sharply divided the Federal Courts of Appeals: What is the
appropriate starting point for judicial determinations of “a reasonable fee
for [representation before the court]”? See ibid. Is the contingent-fee
agreement between claimant and counsel, if not in excess of 25 percent of
past-due benefits, presumptively reasonable? Or should courts begin with a
lodestar calculation (hours reasonably spent on the case times reasonable hourly
rate) of the kind we have approved under statutes that shift the obligation to
pay to the loser in the litigation? See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424,
426 (1983) (interpreting Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988
which allows a “prevailing party” to recover from his adversary “a
reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs” (internal quotation marks
omitted)).
Congress, we conclude, designed §406(b)
to control, not to displace, fee agreements between Social Security benefits
claimants and their counsel. Because the decision before us for review rests on
lodestar calculations and rejects the primacy of lawful attorney-client fee
agreements, we reverse the judgment below and remand for recalculation of
counsel fees payable from the claimants’ past-due benefits.
I
A
Fees for representation of individuals
claiming Social Security old-age, survivor, or disability benefits, both at the
administrative level and in court, are governed by prescriptions Congress
originated in 1965. Social Security Amendments of 1965, 79 Stat. 403, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. §
406.2 The statute deals with the
administrative and judicial review stages discretely: §406(a) governs fees for
representation in administrative proceedings; §406(b) controls fees for
representation in court. See also 20 CFR § 404.1728(a) (2001).
For representation of a benefits
claimant at the administrative level, an attorney may file a fee petition or a
fee agreement. 42 U.S.C.
§ 406(a). In response to a petition, the agency may allow fees “for
services performed in connection with any claim before” it; if a determination
favorable to the benefits claimant has been made, however, the Commissioner of
Social Security “shall … fix … a reasonable fee” for an attorney’s
services. §406(a)(1) (1994 ed.) (emphasis added). In setting fees under this
method, the agency takes into account, in addition to any benefits award,
several other factors. See 20 CFR § 404.1725(b) (2001).3 Fees may be authorized, on petition, even if the
benefits claimant was unsuccessful. §404.1725(b)(2).
As an alternative to fee petitions, the Social
Security Act, as amended in 1990, accommodates contingent fee agreements filed
with the agency in advance of a ruling on the claim for benefits. Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990, 104 Stat. 1388—266 to 1388—267, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 406(a)(2)—(4)
(1994 ed. and Supp. V). If the ruling on the benefits claim is favorable to
the claimant, the agency will generally approve the fee agreement, subject to
this limitation: Fees may not exceed the lesser of 25 percent of past-due
benefits or $4,000 (increased to $5,300 effective February 2002). §§406(a)(2)(A)(ii),
(iii) (1994 ed.); 67 Fed. Reg. 2477 (2002); see Social Security Administration,
Office of Hearings and Appeals, Litigation Law Manual (HALLEX) I—5—109 III.A
(Feb. 5, 1999).
For proceedings in court, Congress provided for fees
on rendition of “a judgment favorable to a claimant.” 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A)
(1994 ed., Supp. V). The Commissioner has interpreted §406(b) to “prohibi[t]
a lawyer from charging fees when there is no award of back benefits.” Tr. of
Oral Arg. 37—38; see Brief in Opposition 12, n. 12 (reading §406(b) to
“prohibi[t] other [fee] arrangements such as non-contingent hourly fees”).
As part of its judgment, a court may allow “a
reasonable fee … not in excess of 25 percent of the … past-due benefits”
awarded to the claimant. §406(b)(1)(A). The fee is payable “out of, and not
in addition to, the amount of [the] past-due benefits.” Ibid. Because
benefits amounts figuring in the fee calculation are limited to those past due,
attorneys may not gain additional fees based on a claimant’s continuing
entitlement to benefits.
The prescriptions set out in §§406(a) and (b)
establish the exclusive regime for obtaining fees for successful representation
of Social Security benefits claimants. Collecting or even demanding from the
client anything more than the authorized allocation of past-due benefits is a
criminal offense. §§406(a)(5), (b)(2) (1994 ed.); 20 CFR §§404.1740—1799
(2001).
In many cases, as in the instant case, the Equal
Access to Justice Act (EAJA), enacted in 1980, effectively increases the portion
of past-due benefits the successful Social Security claimant may pocket. 94
Stat. 2329, as amended, 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
Under EAJA, a party prevailing against the United States in court, including a
successful Social Security benefits claimant, may be awarded fees payable by the
United States if the Government’s position in the litigation was not “substantially
justified.” §2412(d)(1)(A). EAJA fees are determined not by a percent of the
amount recovered, but by the “time expended” and the attorney’s “[hourly]
rate,” §2412(d)(1)(B), capped in the mine run of cases at $125 per hour,
§2412(d)(2)(A).4 Cf. 5 U.S.C. § 504
(authorizing payment of attorney’s fees by the Government when a party
prevails in a federal agency adjudication).
Congress harmonized fees payable by the Government
under EAJA with fees payable under §406(b) out of the claimant’s past-due
Social Security benefits in this manner: Fee awards may be made under both
prescriptions, but the claimant’s attorney must “refun[d] to the claimant
the amount of the smaller fee.” Act of Aug. 5, 1985, Pub. L. 99—80, §3, 99
Stat. 186. “Thus, an EAJA award offsets an award under Section 406(b), so that
the [amount of the total past-due benefits the claimant actually receives] will
be increased by the … EAJA award up to the point the claimant receives 100
percent of the past-due benefits.” Brief for United States 3.
B
Petitioners Gary Gisbrecht, Barbara Miller, and Nancy
Sandine brought three separate actions in the District Court for the District of
Oregon under 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g) (1994 ed.),5 seeking
Social Security disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security
Act. All three petitioners were represented by the same attorneys, and all three
prevailed on the merits of their claims. Gisbrecht was awarded $28,366 in
past-due benefits; Miller, $30,056; and Sandine, $55,952. Each petitioner then
successfully sought attorneys’ fees payable by the United States under EAJA:
Gisbrecht was awarded $3,339.11, Miller, $5,164.75, and Sandine, $6,836.10.
Pursuant to contingent-fee agreements standard for
Social Security claimant representation, see 1 B. Samuels, Social Security
Disability Claims §21:10 (2d ed. 1994), Gisbrecht, Miller, and Sandine had
each agreed to pay counsel 25 percent of all past-due benefits recovered, App.
to Pet. for Cert. 72—86. Their attorneys accordingly requested §406(b) fees
of $7,091.50 from Gisbrecht’s recovery, $7,514 from Miller’s, and $13,988
from Sandine’s. Given the EAJA offsets, the amounts in fact payable from each
client’s past-due benefits recovery would have been $3,752.39 from Gisbrecht’s
recovery, $2,349.25 from Miller’s, and $7,151.90 from Sandine’s.
Following Circuit precedent, see Allen v. Shalala,
48 F.3d 456, 458—459 (CA9 1995), the District Court in each case declined to
give effect to the attorney-client fee agreement. Gisbrecht v. Apfel,
No. CV—98—0437—RE (Ore., Apr. 14, 1999); Miller v. Apfel,
No. CV—96—6164—AS (Ore., Mar. 30, 1999); Sandine v. Apfel,
No. CV—97—6197—ST (Ore., June 18, 1999). Instead, the court employed for
the §406(b) fee calculation a “lodestar” method, under which the number of
hours reasonably devoted to each case was multiplied by a reasonable hourly fee.
This method yielded as §406(b) fees $3,135 from Gisbrecht’s recovery,
$5,461.50 from Miller’s, and $6,550 from Sandine’s. Offsetting the EAJA
awards, the court determined that no portion of Gisbrecht’s or Sandine’s
past-due benefits was payable to counsel, and that only $296.75 of Miller’s
recovery was payable to her counsel as a §406(b) fee. The three claimants
appealed.6
Adhering to Circuit precedent applying the lodestar
method to calculate fees under §406(b), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit consolidated the cases 7
and affirmed the District Court’s fee dispositions. Gisbrecht v. Apfel,
238 F.3d 1196 (2000). The Appeals Court noted that fees determined under the
lodestar method could be adjusted by applying 12 further factors, one of them,
“whether the fee is fixed or contingent.” Id., at 1198 (quoting Kerr
v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (CA9 1975)).8 While “a district court must consider
a plaintiff’s request to increase a fee [based on a contingent-fee agreement],”
the Ninth Circuit stated, “a court ‘is not required to articulate its
reasons’ for accepting or rejecting such a request.” 238 F.3d, at 1199
(quoting Widrig v. Apfel, 140 F.3d 1207, 1211 (CA9 1998))
(emphasis in original).
We granted certiorari, 534 U.S.
1039 (2001), in view of the division among the Circuits on the appropriate
method of calculating fees under §406(b). Compare Coup v. Heckler,
834 F.2d 313 (CA3 1987); Craig v. Secretary, Dept. of Health and
Human Servs., 864 F.2d 324 (CA4 1989); Brown v. Sullivan, 917
F.2d 189 (CA5 1990); Cotter v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 359 (CA8 1989); Hubbard
v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 946 (CA10 1993); and Kay v. Apfel, 176
F.3d 1322 (CA11 1999) (all following, in accord with the Ninth Circuit, a
lodestar method), with Wells v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 367 (CA2 1990);
Rodriguez v. Bowen, 865 F.2d 739 (CA6 1989) (en banc); and McGuire
v. Sullivan, 873 F.2d 974 (CA7 1989) (all giving effect to
attorney-client contingent-fee agreement, if resulting fee is reasonable).9 We now reverse the Ninth Circuit’s
judgment.
II
Beginning with the text, §406(b)’s words, “a
reasonable fee … not in excess of 25 percent of … the past-due benefits,”
read in isolation, could be construed to allow either the Ninth Circuit’s
lodestar approach or petitioners’ position that the attorney-client fee
agreement ordinarily should control, if not “in excess of 25 percent.” The
provision instructs “a reasonable fee,” which could be measured by a
lodestar calculation. But §406(b)’s language does not exclude contingent-fee
contracts that produce fees no higher than the 25 percent ceiling. Such
contracts are the most common fee arrangement between attorneys and Social
Security claimants. See Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security
Administration, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Report to Congress: Attorney
Fees Under Title II of the Social Security Act 15, 66, 70 (July 1988)
(hereinafter SSA Report); Brief for National Organization of Social Security
Claimants’ Representatives as Amicus Curiae 1—2. Looking outside the
statute’s inconclusive text, we next take into account, as interpretive
guides, the origin and standard application of the proffered approaches.
The lodestar method has its roots in accounting
practices adopted in the 1940’s to allow attorneys and firms to determine
whether fees charged were sufficient to cover overhead and generate suitable
profits. W. Ross, The Honest Hour: The Ethics of Time-Based Billing by
Attorneys 16 (1996) (hereinafter Honest Hour). An American Bar Association (ABA)
report, published in 1958, observed that attorneys’ earnings had failed to
keep pace with the rate of inflation; the report urged attorneys to record the
hours spent on each case in order to ensure that fees ultimately charged
afforded reasonable compensation for counsels’ efforts. See Special Committee
on Economics of Law Practice, The 1958 Lawyer and His 1938 Dollar 9—10
(reprint 1959).
Hourly records initially provided only an internal
accounting check. See Honest Hour 19. The fees actually charged might be
determined under any number of methods: the annual retainer; the fee-for-service
method; the “eyeball” method, under which the attorney estimated an annual
fee for regular clients; or the contingent-fee method, recognized by this Court
in Stanton v. Embrey, 93 U.S. 548,
556 (1877), and formally approved by the ABA in 1908. See Honest Hour 13—19.
As it became standard accounting practice to record hours spent on a client’s
matter, attorneys increasingly realized that billing by hours devoted to a case
was administratively convenient; moreover, as an objective measure of a lawyer’s
labor, hourly billing was readily impartable to the client. Id.,
at 18. By the early 1970’s, the practice of hourly billing had become
widespread. See id., at 19, 21.
The federal courts did not swiftly settle on hourly
rates as the overriding criterion for attorney’s fee awards. In 1974, for
example, the Fifth Circuit issued an influential opinion holding that, in
setting fees under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e—5(k)
(1970 ed.), courts should consider not only the number of hours devoted to a
case but also 11 other factors. Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express,
Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717—719 (1974).10
The lodestar method did not gain a firm foothold until the mid-1970’s, see Lindy
Bros. Builders, Inc. of Philadelphia v. American Radiator & Standard
Sanitary Corp., 487 F.2d 161 (CA3 1973), appeal after remand, 540 F.2d 102
(1976), and achieved dominance in the federal courts only after this Court’s
decisions in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424
(1983), Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886
(1984), and Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for
Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546
(1986).
Since that time, “[t]he ‘lodestar’ figure has,
as its name suggests, become the guiding light of our fee-shifting
jurisprudence.” Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557,
562 (1992) (relying on Hensley, Blum, and Delaware Valley to apply
lodestar method to fee determination under Solid Waste Disposal Act, §7002(e), 42 U.S.C. § 6972(e)
(1988 ed.), and Clean Water Act, §505(d), 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d)
(1988 ed.), and noting prior application of lodestar method to Civil Rights
Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988
(1988 ed., Supp. III); Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e—5(k)
(1988 ed., Supp. III); and Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7604(d)
(1988 ed.)). As we recognized in Hensley, “[i]deally, … litigants
will settle the amount of a fee.” 461 U.S., at 437.11 But where settlement between the parties is not
possible, “[t]he most useful starting point for [court determination of] the
amount of a reasonable fee [payable by the loser] is the number of hours
reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.”
Id., at 433. Thus, the lodestar method today holds sway in federal-court
adjudication of disputes over the amount of fees properly shifted to the loser
in the litigation. See id., at 440 (Burger, C. J., concurring)
(decision addresses statute under which “a lawyer seeks to have his adversary
pay the fees of the prevailing party”).
Fees shifted to the losing party, however, are not at
issue here. Unlike 42
U.S.C. § 1988 (1994 ed. and Supp. V) and EAJA, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)
(1994 ed., Supp. V) does not authorize the prevailing party to recover fees
from the losing party. Section 406(b) is of another genre: It authorizes fees
payable from the successful party’s recovery. Several statutes governing suits
against the United States similarly provide that fees may be paid from the
plaintiff’s recovery. See, e.g., Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 2678 (“No
attorney shall charge, demand, receive, or collect for services rendered, fees
in excess of 25 per centum of any [court] judgment rendered [in an FTCA suit],
or in excess of 20 per centum of any award, compromise, or settlement made [by a
federal agency to settle an FTCA claim].”); Veterans’ Benefits Act, 38 U.S.C. § 5904(d)(1)
(1994 ed.) (“When a claimant [for veterans’ benefits] and an attorney have
entered into a [contingent] fee agreement [under which fees are paid by
withholding from the claimant’s benefits award], the total fee payable to the
attorney may not exceed 20 percent of the total amount of any past-due benefits
awarded on the basis of the claim.”).12
Characteristically in cases of the kind we confront, attorneys and clients enter
into contingent-fee agreements “specifying that the fee will be 25 percent of
any past-due benefits to which the claimant becomes entitled.” Brief for
National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives as Amicus
Curiae 2; see Brief for Washington Legal Foundation et al. as Amicus
Curiae 9, n. 6 (“There is no serious dispute among the parties that
virtually every attorney representing Title II disability claimants
includes in his/her retainer agreement a provision calling for a fee equal to
25% of the past-due benefits awarded by the courts.”).
Contingent fees, though problematic, particularly
when not exposed to court review, are common in the United States in many
settings. Such fees, perhaps most visible in tort litigation, are also used in, e.g.,
patent litigation, real estate tax appeals, mergers and acquisitions, and public
offerings. See ABA Formal Opinion 94—389, ABA/BNA Lawyers’ Manual On
Professional Conduct 1001:248, 1001:250 (1994). But see id., at 1001:248,
n. 3 (quoting observation that controls on contingent fees are needed to
“reduce financial incentives that encourage lawyers to file unnecessary,
unwarranted[,] and unmeritorious suits” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Traditionally and today, “the marketplace for Social Security representation
operates largely on a contingency fee basis.” SSA Report 3; see also id.,
at 15, 66, 70; App. to Pet. for Cert. 56, 60, 88, 89, 91 (affidavits of
practitioners).
Before 1965, the Social Security Act imposed no
limits on contingent-fee agreements drawn by counsel and signed by benefits
claimants. In formulating the 1965 Social Security Act amendments that included
§406(b), Congress recognized that “attorneys have upon occasion charged …
inordinately large fees for representing claimants [in court].” S. Rep.
No. 404, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, p. 122 (1965).
Arrangements yielding exorbitant fees, the Senate Report observed, reserved for
the lawyer one-third to one-half of the accrued benefits. Ibid. Congress
was mindful, too, that the longer the litigation persisted, the greater the
build-up of past-due benefits and, correspondingly, of legal fees awardable from
those benefits if the claimant prevailed. Ibid.13
Attending to these realities, Congress provided for
“a reasonable fee, not in excess of 25 percent of accrued benefits” as part
of the court’s judgment, and further specified that “no other fee would be
payable.” Ibid. Violation of the “reasonable fee” or “25 percent
of accrued benefits” limitation was made subject to the same penalties as
those applicable for charging a fee larger than the amount approved by the
Commissioner for services at the administrative level–a fine of up to $500,
one year’s imprisonment, or both. Ibid. “[T]o assure the payment of
the fee allowed by the court,” Congress authorized the agency “to certify
the amount of the fee to the attorney out of the amount of the accrued benefits.”
Ibid.; see supra, at 14, n. 13.
Congress thus sought to protect claimants against “inordinately
large fees” and also to ensure that attorneys representing successful
claimants would not risk “nonpayment of [appropriate] fees.” SSA Report 66
(internal quotation marks omitted). But nothing in the text or history of
§406(b) reveals a “desig[n] to prohibit or discourage attorneys and claimants
from entering into contingent fee agreements.” Ibid. Given the
prevalence of contingent-fee agreements between attorneys and Social Security
claimants, it is unlikely that Congress, simply by prescribing “reasonable
fees,” meant to outlaw, rather than to contain, such agreements.14
This conclusion is bolstered by Congress’ 1990
authorization of contingent-fee agreements under §406(a), the provision
governing fees for agency-level representation. Before enacting this express
authorization, Congress instructed the Social Security Administration to prepare
a report on attorney’s fees under Title II of the Social Security Act.
Pub. L. 100—203, §9021(b), 101 Stat. 1330—295. The report, presented to
Congress in 1988, reviewed several methods of determining attorney’s fees,
including the lodestar method. See SSA Report 10—11. This review led the
agency to inform Congress that, although the contingency method was hardly
flawless, the agency could “identify no more effective means of ensuring
claimant access to attorney representation.” Id., at 25.
Congress subsequently altered §406(a) to validate
contingent-fee agreements filed with the agency prior to disposition of the
claim for benefits. See 42
U.S.C. § 406(a)(2) (1994 ed.); supra, at 4. As petitioners observe,
Brief for Petitioners 24, it would be anomalous if contract-based fees expressly
authorized by §406(a)(2) at the administrative level were disallowed for court
representation under §406(b).
It is also unlikely that Congress, legislating in
1965, and providing for a contingent fee tied to a 25 percent of past-due
benefits boundary, intended to install a lodestar method courts did not develop
until some years later. See supra, at 10—11. Furthermore, we again
emphasize, the lodestar method was designed to govern imposition of fees on the
losing party. See, e.g., Dague, 505 U.S., at 562. In such cases,
nothing prevents the attorney for the prevailing party from gaining additional
fees, pursuant to contract, from his own client. See Venegas v. Mitchell, 495 U.S. 82, 89—90
(1990) (“[None] of our cases has indicated that [42 U.S.C.] §1988 …
protects plaintiffs from having to pay what they have contracted to pay, even
though their contractual liability is greater than the statutory award that they
may collect from losing opponents. Indeed, depriving plaintiffs of the option of
promising to pay more than the statutory fee if that is necessary to secure
counsel of their choice would not further §1988’s general purpose of enabling
such plaintiffs … to secure competent counsel.”). By contrast, §406(b)
governs the total fee a claimant’s attorney may receive for court
representation; any endeavor by the claimant’s attorney to gain more
than that fee, or to charge the claimant a noncontingent fee, is a criminal
offense. 42 U.S.C. §
406(b)(2); 20 CFR § 404.1740(c)(2) (2001).
Most plausibly read, we conclude, §406(b) does not
displace contingent-fee agreements as the primary means by which fees are set
for successfully representing Social Security benefits claimants in court.
Rather, §406(b) calls for court review of such arrangements as an independent
check, to assure that they yield reasonable results in particular cases.15 Congress has provided one boundary
line: Agreements are unenforceable to the extent that they provide for fees
exceeding 25 percent of the past-due benefits. §406(b)(1)(A) (1994 ed.,
Supp. V).16 Within the 25
percent boundary, as petitioners in this case acknowledge, the attorney for the
successful claimant must show that the fee sought is reasonable for the services
rendered. See Brief for Petitioners 40.17
Courts that approach fee determinations by looking
first to the contingent-fee agreement, then testing it for reasonableness, have
appropriately reduced the attorney’s recovery based on the character of the
representation and the results the representative achieved. See, e.g.,
McGuire, 873 F.2d, at 983 (“Although the contingency agreement should be
given significant weight in fixing a fee, a district judge must independently
assess the reasonableness of its terms.”); Lewis v. Secretary of
Health and Human Servs., 707 F.2d 246, 249—250 (CA6 1983) (instructing
reduced fee when representation is substandard). If the attorney is
responsible for delay, for example, a reduction is in order so that the attorney
will not profit from the accumulation of benefits during the pendency of the
case in court. See Rodriquez, 865 F.2d, at 746—747. If the benefits are
large in comparison to the amount of time counsel spent on the case, a downward
adjustment is similarly in order. See id., at 747 (reviewing court should
disallow “windfalls for lawyers”); Wells, 907 F.2d, at 372 (same). In
this regard, the court may require the claimant’s attorney to submit, not as a
basis for satellite litigation, but as an aid to the court’s assessment of the
reasonableness of the fee yielded by the fee agreement, a record of the hours
spent representing the claimant and a statement of the lawyer’s normal hourly
billing charge for noncontingent-fee cases. See Rodriquez, 865 F.2d, at
741. Judges of our district courts are accustomed to making reasonableness
determinations in a wide variety of contexts, and their assessments in such
matters, in the
event of an appeal, ordinarily qualify for highly re-
spectful review.
* * *
The courts below erroneously read §406(b) to
override customary attorney-client contingent-fee agreements. We hold that
§406(b) does not displace contingent-fee agreements within the statutory
ceiling; instead, §406(b) instructs courts to review for reasonableness fees
yielded by those agreements. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
|