MEMORANDUM

This appeal and cross-appeal involve a district court’s award of attorney fees to Nguyen under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). See 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (g)(1).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in setting an hourly rate of $180 for Nguyen’s attorney fees after Nguyen failed to offer any relevant evidence to support the claimed $325 hourly rate. See Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 , 895 n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 1541 , 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984) (fee applicant bears the burden of producing satisfactory evidence of the prevailing rates in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation). Evidence submitted by Hartford supports the $180 rate set by the district court.

Nguyen requested fees for 18 hours of time spent replying to Hartford’s brief opposing the motion for attorney fees and attending the hearing on the motion for attorney fees. In a somewhat cryptic manner, the district court indicated that it had considered those 18 hours, and the district court did not err in disallowing fees for those hours.

The district court appropriately awarded Nguyen attorney fees for time spent on unsuccessful, non-ERISA claims because those claims were related to the ERISA claims, and Nguyen achieved a level of success that makes those and the other hours reasonably expended, a satisfactory basis for making this fee award. See Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 812-13 (9th Cir.2005); see also Elliot v. Fortis Benefits Ins. Co., 337 F.3d 1138, 1148 (9th Cir.2003).

The district court properly calculated the lodestar amount by multiplying the 164.2 hours reasonably expended by Nguyen’s lawyer by the reasonable hourly rate of $180, resulting in the attorney fee award of $29,556. See McElwaine v. U.S. West, Inc., 176 F.3d 1167, 1173 (9th Cir.1999).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. . Hartford Life Insurance Company's motion to take judicial notice, filed at docket 20 in No. 09-56909, is denied.