NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 22 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERIC A. DUPREE, former attorney for No. 22-70021 Claimant, BRB No. 20-0106 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

RESOURCE CONSULTANTS; et al.,

Respondents,

CHARLES THOMPSON,

Real Party in Interest.

ERIC A. DUPREE, former attorney for No. 22-70046 Claimant, BRB Nos. 20-0106 Petitioner, 21-0573

v.

RESOURCE CONSULTANTS; et al.,

Respondents,

CHARLES THOMPSON,

Real Party in Interest.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

- ERIC A. DUPREE, No. 23-2050

Petitioner, BRB No. 20-0106

v.

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKER'S

COMPENSATION

PROGRAMS; RESOURCE

CONSULTANTS; CONTINENTAL

INSURANCE COMPANY/CNA

INTERNATIONAL; TRAVELERS

CASUALTY INSURANCE

COMPANY; SERCO, INC.; AIG CHARTIS

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Respondents,

CHARLES THOMPSON,

Real Party in Interest.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board

Submitted July 8, 2024** San Francisco, California

Before: FRIEDLAND, MENDOZA, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

Eric Dupree petitions for review of two Benefits Review Board (“Board”)

decisions affirming the denial of his petitions for attorneys’ fees for representing a

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2 claimant seeking workers’ compensation under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’

Compensation Act. Dupree’s counsel, Norman Cole, also petitions for review of the

Board’s denial of his motion for fees for representing Dupree in connection with

Dupree’s petitions for fees before the agency. We deny the petitions.

1. After Dupree withdrew from representation, the claimant settled his

claims with the employers and carriers under the Act. See 33 U.S.C. § 908(i). Those

settlement agreements extinguished the employers’ and carriers’ liability for the

claims and for related attorneys’ fees, and also provided that the claimant’s current

counsel would allocate fees to Dupree for the work he performed before he

withdrew. The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) approved the agreements. See id. §

908(i)(3); 20 C.F.R. § 702.132(c). Dupree did nothing to assert or protect his

interests at that time, even though he had notice of the impending settlements. Over

three years later, Dupree filed motions for attorney’s fees before the ALJ and the

Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs for work done before

the claims settled. Dupree cannot collaterally attack the final settlement agreements

by appealing his separate motions for fees. See 33 U.S.C. § 921(a) (stating

compensation orders become final after 30 days); Downs v. Dir., OWCP, U.S. Dep’t

of Labor, 803 F.2d 193, 199 n.13 (5th Cir. 1986) (explaining that, because the

settlement agreement was final, “the ALJ’s authority, while open to attack on direct

appeal, cannot be challenged in this collateral proceeding”).

3 2. Nor is Cole entitled to recover fees from the employers and carriers

because the settlement agreements extinguished the employers’ and carriers’

liability for future attorneys’ fees. See Downs, 803 F.2d at 199 n.13.

PETITION DENIED.

4