Learn more about the EAJA

EAJA Awards

Filters
Agency Agency subcomponent Name Award date Award amount Awardees Claims description Finding basis Actions
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services OS/OGC/Region 1 Jonathan Bloom v. Alex Azar II, 18-2390 (2d Cir.)
$ 302,488
Jonathan Bloom The parties agreed to resolve attorney's fees in this litigation (both district court and second circuit litigation) for $300,000. Recommendation for settlement amount was approved by CMS. Recommendation memo is attached below along with settlement agreement. An additional amount ($2,488.13) was added to EAJA fee payment to account for interest on Plaintiff's unpaid Medicare claims. This amount has also been reported under connected district court matter. The district court previously determined that the Secretary's litigating position with regard to non-coverage of CGMs was not substantially justified. In appeal of procedural rulings, the Second Circuit disagreed with the Secretary's arguments regarding the aggregation of claims. As a result, it was likely that plaintiff may be entitled to fees for entirety of litigation before both the district court and Second Circuit. Show
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) Hector Garza dba Trinity Transports, US DOT No. 2131513
$ 1,800
Hector Garza dba Trinity Transports The Notice of Claim alleged that the Applicant violated: 1) 49 C.F.R. § 173.24(b)(1) by offering or transporting hazardous materials in a package that had an identifiable release of haardous materials to the environment; 2) 49 C.F.R. § 177.801 by using an unauthorized tank to transport Anhydrous Ammonia 2.2, a hazardous material in interstate commerce; and 3) 49 C.F.R. § 385.403 by transporting Anhydrous Ammonia 2.2, a hazardous material, prior to obtaining a Hazardous Materials Safety Permit. The applicant met its burden to prove its eligibility for an EAJA award. The Agency was only substantially justified in alleging the applicant committed two of the three regulatory violations contained in the Notice of Claim, and so the applicant was entitled to a reasonable award of fees and expenses. Show
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) Multistar Industries, Inc. dba Multifrost, US DOT No. 461410
$ 1,930
Multistar Industries, Inc. dba Multifrost The Notice of Claim alleged that the Applicant violated: 1) 49 C.F.R. § 171.2(e)/173.315 by offering for transportation an unauthorized tank to transport a hazardous material in commerce, and 2) 49 C.F.R. § 173.22(b) by offering a shipment of Anhydrous Ammonia 2.2, a hazardous material, to a carrier that does not hold a Hazardous Materials Safety Permit. The applicant met its burden to prove its eligibility for an EAJA award. The Agency was only substantially justified in alleging the applicant committed one of the two regulatory violations contained in the Notice of Claim, and so the applicant was entitled to a reasonable award of fees and expenses. Show
U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office of Immigration Review Jorge Baez-Sanchez v. William P. Barr, Attorney General
$ 52,500
Jorge Baez-Sanchez The noncitizen petition sought a nonimmigrant waiver of removability before an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals concluded that the immigration judge lacked the authority to consider the waiver. The court ruled that the Board’s decision conflicted with its mandate in an earlier decision remanding the case to the Board and ordered the agency to grant the nonimmigrant waiver. Show
U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office of Immigration Review Baldemar Zuniga v. William P. Barr, Attorney General
$ 27,301
Baldemar Zuniga The non-citizen petitioner claimed a right to be represented by an attorney in “reasonable fear” review by an immigration judge under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31 and that the immigration judge violated that right by proceeding in that review without obtaining a valid waiver of that right. The court ruled that the statutory right to counsel provided to non-citizens in removal proceedings initiated under 8 U.S.C. § 1228 applies to the related “reasonable fear” review by an immigration judge; given the government’s acknowledgement the immigration judge failed to obtain a valid waiver of that right to counsel, the court held that the non-citizen was deprived of that right and is entitled to a new “reasonable fear” review hearing.   Show
U.S. Department of Labor ETA/OFLC Hispanic Affairs Project, et al. v. Martin J. Walsh, et al.
$ 62,500
Towards Justice of Colorado The litigation challenged the Department of Labor’s final rule, Temporary Agricultural Employment of H-2A Foreign Workers in the Herding or Production of Livestock on the Range in the United States, 80 FR 62958 (Oct. 16, 2015), in which the Department codified special procedures for herding and production of livestock on the range applications under the H-2A program. It also challenged the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) alleged practice of automatically approving sheep and goat herder petitions for recurring periods up to 364 days, asserting that the Department’s regulation at 20 CFR 655.215(b)(2) and DHS’s alleged practice did not conform with the Immigration and Nationality Act or the Departments’ regulations, in violation of the APA. Note the amount paid was negotiated between the parties to settle plaintiffs’ fee claim, rather than as an EAJA award expressly issued by the Court. In addition, note DOL’s amount paid was obligated using funds from a prior fiscal year, rather than paid with FY22 funds. Show
U.S. Department of Labor ETA/OFLC United Farm Workers, et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, et al.
$ 33,955
Farmworker Justice Fund, Inc. The litigation challenged the Department of Labor’s final rule, Adverse Effect Wage Rate Methodology for the Temporary Employment of H-2A Nonimmigrants in Non-Range Occupations in the United States, 85 FR 70445 (Nov. 5, 2020), which amended the methodology the Office of Foreign Labor Certification uses to calculate the Adverse Effect Wage Rate for non-range occupations in the H-2A program. Note the amount paid was negotiated between the parties to settle plaintiffs’ fee claim, rather than as an express EAJA award issued by the Court. Show
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services OS/OGC/R04 Dobson, Donald; 18cv10038
$ 99,046
Donald Dobson The lawsuit sought judicial review of a final agency decision by the Medicare Appeals Council on Medicare Part D enrollee Dobson’s claim for coverage of a particular off-label use of a prescription drug. The case turned on the reading of an entry in the DRUGDEX, a pharmacological compendium. Although the District Court (SDFL) upheld the decision of the Medicare Appeals Council, Dobson subsequently received a favorable ruling, on appeal, from the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Settlement Show
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Null Mercier, et al v. United States
$ 48,463,544
Over 3,200 former and current and Physician Assistants (PAs) Advanced Practice Registered Nurses (APRNs) The lawsuit is a class action involving VA advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) and physician assistants (PAs) who claimed entitlement to overtime pay under 38 USC 7453(e)(1), which requires the agency to compensate "officially ordered or approved" overtime. Global settlement Show
U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. NPS
$ 32,677
Peter T. Jenkins, Paula Dinerstein, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility The lawsuit challenged the E-Bike Policy under five legal theories. First, Plaintiffs alleged that the E-Bike Policy violated NPS regulations and the Administrative Procedure Act. Second, Plaintiffs contended that the Policy was issued in violation of NEPA because no NEPA document was prepared. Third, they asserted that the Policy was issued by an official that was unlawfully acting as the NPS Director in violation of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA). Fourth, they contended that the Policy was issued by an official without authority because the NPS unlawfully created a third deputy director position in violation of its Organic Act. And, fifth, they alleged that the Policy was the result of a de facto advisory committee in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). These claims were later amended to challenge a subsequent regulation. There was no evidence of NEPA compliance for the Policy in the record. Had later actions not mooted or otherwise cured issues relating to the Policy, the Court made clear that Defendants would have lost those claims as well. Show
Other Agency Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Sierra Club v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
$ 136,230
Flint Riverkeeper and Chattahoochee Riverkeeper The fee award arose from the Court's determination that the Commission violated NEPA by failing to calculate and consider the environmental effects of emissions stemming from the end use of the natural gas transported on a FERC-jurisdictional pipeline. The Court found that the Commission's position that NEPA did not require the calculation and consideration of end use emissions was not substantially justified. Show
Other Agency Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) American Rivers v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
$ 90,000
American Rivers and Alabama Rivers Alliance The fee award arose from the Court's decision vacating a hydroelectric license granted by the Commission. The court found: (1) that the Commission violated NEPA by relying upon an environmental assessement instead of a more detailed environmental impact statement; and (2) that the Commission failed to reasonably consider and address multiple indicators of the project's significant impact on the enviornment. The court also found that the Biological Opinion prepared by Fish & Wildlife Service was deficient. Settlement amongst the parties. The parties agreed to a settlement whereby the Commission and the Department of Interior would pay a total of $90,000 for the petitioners' attorneys' fees incurred in the court litigation. There is no court order approving the settlement; rather the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the motion for attorneys fees, and the court granted that motion on March 8, 2019. Show
U.S. Department of Justice The defendants in this suit were the U.S. Department of Justice... Andew G. McCabe v. Merrick B. Garland, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, et al.
$ 539,348
Andrew G. McCabe The complaint generally alleges that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew G. McCabe was improperly demoted and terminated and asserts claims under the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Settlement agreement Show
U.S. Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Ecological Rights Foundation v. FEMA Null
$ 717,400
REDACTED The case is a 2017 lawsuit challenging the National Flood Insurance Program’s (NFIP) compliance with Section 7 of the ESA and seeking to set aside the 2016 Biological Evaluation (BE) of the implementation of the NFIP at the national level. The award was based on a DOJ determination. Show
U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration/Office of Foreign Labor C... Hispanic Affairs Project v. Scalia
$ 62,500
Towards Justice and Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP the case involved an Administrative Procedure Act challenge to aspects of the Employment and Training Administrations 2015 H-2A herder regulation, claiming that aspects of the rule were inconsistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act and therefore arbitrary and capricious Settlement agreement Show
Viewing 15 of 73710 results