Winterstein

concurring in the result:

I concur only in the result remanding this case to the district court. I write separately to emphasize that I do not join any suggestion that the district court should consider awarding additional fees on remand. I join the remand order for the sole purpose of allowing the district court judge to specify the reasons for his denial of fees.

MEMORANDUM *

Lydia Winterstein appeals two aspects of the district court’s ruling granting her attorney’s fees for her suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”): (1) the hourly rate of $300, and (2) the denial of fees for her motion to reconsider the court’s first fees ruling. We review the district court’s fee award for abuse of discretion. Welch v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2007).

1. ERISA permits a district court to award “reasonable” attorney’s fees and costs to either party. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (g)(1). An hourly rate for attorney’s fees should be set “by reference to the fees that private attorneys of an ability and reputation comparable to that of prevailing counsel charge their paying clients for legal work of similar complexity.” Welch, 480 F.3d at 946 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Although the district court did not clearly explain the basis for its selection of the $300 hourly rate, we may affirm on the basis of any ground supported by the rec *843 ord. Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir.2007). Here, evidence in the record showed that hourly rates for ERISA specialists in the relevant…