Cory Birnberg APC v. Pozos

175 F. App'x 816
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided March 29, 2006·No. No. 05-16195·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Ana Pozos appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Cory Birnberg APC, in Birnberg’s action to enforce an order awarding attorney fees pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 928(c) in a Long-shore and Harbor Workers Compensation case. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Feiler v. United States, 62 F.3d 315, 316 (9th Cir.1995), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Birnberg’s attorney fee order was enforceable and the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Pozos’ challenges to the ALJ’s underlying decision. See Thompson v. Potashnick Constr. Co, 812 F.2d 574, 576 (9th Cir.1987) (holding that a district court only has jurisdiction to order compliance with compensation orders entered by an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) and reviewed by the Benefits Review Board, and to screen for procedural defects, but may not otherwise affirm, modify, suspend, or set aside a compensation order based on the substantive merits of the ALJ’s decision).

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cory Birnberg APC v. Pozos, 175 F. App'x 816 (9th Cir. 2006).

175 F. App'x 816 (Cory Birnberg APC v. Pozos) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Feiler v. United States
62 F.3d 315 (Ninth Circuit, 1995)