EAJA Awards
| Agency | Agency subcomponent | Name | Award date | Award amount | Awardees | Claims description | Finding basis | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. Department of Commerce | U.S. Census Bureau (CEN) | State of California, et al. v. U.S. Dept of Commerce, et al. |
$ 900,000
|
State of California; Los Angeles Unified School District; City of Oakland | Reinstatement of decennial census question not in accordance with law | Settlement Agreement for attorneys fees at significant discount from original fee claims with costs paid by Department of Justice | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) | J.L., et al. v. Cuccinelli, et al. |
$ 860,871
|
REDACTED | Challenge to the denial of SIJ to applicants who were over 18 but for whom family court appointed guardians. | EAJA claim was settled. | Show | |
| Other Agency | Federal Trade Commission (FTC) | LabMD, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission |
$ 843,174
|
LabMD, Inc. | Petition for review of final FTC cease-and-desist order | Lack of substantial justification for agency position | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs | Veterans Benefits Administration | Nehmer v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs |
$ 840,487
|
National Veterans Legal Services Program | Ongoing class action litigation regarding a group of Vietnam-era veterans and their survivors | Settlement agreement | Show | |
| U.S. Department of the Interior | Bureau of Land Management (BLM) | Dine Citizens Against Ruining the Environment v. Bernhardt |
$ 791,710
|
Kyle Tisdel | Plaintiffs alleged violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S. C. §§ 4321 et seq., and its implementing regulations, made reviewable pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §701 et seq. Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction on May 11, 2015. | The Tenth Circuit vacated certain oil and gas drilling decisions of the BLM for failure to comply with NEPA. | 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 Justice | Executive Office for Immigration Review | Hernandez v. Garland |
$ 688,267
|
The ACLU Foundation of Southern California | Habeas/prolonged detention | Settlement agreement | Show | |
| Other Agency | Environmental Protection Agency | National Family Farm Coalition, et al. v. EPA, et al. |
$ 675,000
|
Center for Food Safety | Challenge under FIFRA and the Endangered Species Act to EPA's 2018 amendment of registration for use in 34 states of the herbicide dicamba on cotton and soybean that have been genetically engineered to resist dicamba | Settlement Agreement | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Null | Save the Scenic Santa Ritas, et al. v. Forest Service, et al. |
$ 650,000
|
Save the Scenic Santa Ritas, Arizona Mining Reform Coalition, Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club, and the Center for Biological Diversity | NEPA, APA | Null | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Health and Human Services | Children, Family and Aging Division (CFAD) | Flores EAJA Fees (re July 30 2018 Order) |
$ 648,790
|
Center for HR and Constitutional Law; Univ. of CA Davis School of Law; National Center for Youth Law | Recitals are as follows: A. On April 14, 2018, Flores counsel filed a Motion to Enforce the terms of the Flores Settlement Agreement in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:85-cv-04544). In the Motion, Plaintiffs asserted that that the Office of Refugee Resettlement (“ORR”) has breached the Flores Agreement by implementing policies and/or practices that fall within three categories, including: (1) placing Class Members in Residential Treatment Centers (“RTCs”), staff-secure facilities, and secure facilities; (2) administering psychotropic drugs to Class Members without first obtaining a court order or the information consent of a person authorized by state law to approve such decisions; and (3) unnecessarily prolonging Class Members’ detention in ORR facilities. B. On July 30, 2018, the District Court entered an Order finding that the Government must: (1) transfer all class members out of Shiloh RTC in Manvel, Texas unless a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist has determined or determines that a particular class member poses a risk of harm to self or others; (2) provide access to drinking water at Shiloh RTC and permit class members there to talk privately on the phone as permitted by house rules and regulations; (3) provide written notice to class members of reasons for placing them in a secure or staff-secure facility or RTC; (4) remove from a secure facility any class member who was placed or whose placement has been maintained there solely because the class member “may be chargeable” (as opposed to “is chargeable”) with an offense, the Class Member reported gang involvement or displayed gang affiliation while in care, and Defendants lack probable cause to believe that the individual committed any other specified offense, and/or the Class Member self-disclosed gang involvement prior to placement in ORR custody that does not give risk to probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a specified off | Settlement – Stipulated Dismissal | Show | |
| U.S. Department of the Interior | Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) | Red Wolf Coalition, et al. v. FWS |
$ 620,000
|
Southern Environmental Law Center | Plaintiffs filed a complaint in this matter alleging the Service violated the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) and the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) in connection with its management of the nonessential experimental population of red wolves in eastern North Carolina. | The Judge granted Plaintiffs' MSJ finding that the FWS violated sections 4, 7 and 9 of the ESA as regarded its Red Wolf Non-Essential Experimental Population 10(j) rule. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of the Interior | Bureau of Land Management (BLM) | Western Watersheds Project v. Ellis (Battlecreek) |
$ 578,000
|
Advocates for the West Lawyer's Trust | Plaintiffs alleged Defendants violated the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act ("FLPMA"), and the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). | Not Provided | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Health and Human Services | OGC Childern, Family and Aging Division | Flores v. Garland |
$ 577,286
|
National Center for Youth Law | On June 22, 2022, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Approval of Class Notice of Settlement concerning ORR’s use of Emergency Intake Sites (“EIS”) facilities. This Settlement provides, in pertinent part, the standards the Government will meet while operating EISs including suitable living accommodations, access to daily outdoor activity, private phone calls at least twice a week for at least ten minutes in length, family reunification services, appropriate mental health interventions, educational services, legal services information, and structured leisure time activities. On September 23, 2022, the federal court granted final approval of the Settlement. The Government and lawyers for class members have agreed that the Government will pay class members’ attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $577,286.09 to compensate them for their work which resulted in the EIS Settlement. | Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement [ECF No. 1329], Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration in support thereof [ECF No. 1338], and the parties’ Joint Stipulation to Dismiss EAJA Motion with Prejudice and Proposal Regarding Notice to Flores Class Members of Settlement (“Joint Stipulation”) [ECF No. 1310], and for the reasons stated on the record at the Final Fairness Hearing on April 14, 2023, the Court finds that: The parties engaged in non-collusive, arm’s-length negotiations to resolve Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“MAF”) [ECF No. 1282]; The proposed Settlement Agreement requires Defendants to pay Plaintiffs $577,286.09 in settlement of Plaintiffs’ claims and any potential claims for attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, and related expenses pursuant to the MAF, and the MAF supports an award of this size; There is no evidence of collusion between the parties regarding fees, or of Plaintiffs putting their interests in obtaining fees ahead of the interests of the Class; The Notice of the proposed Settlement Agreement provided to the Class satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1) and due process; and Counsel have received no objections from Class Members or their family members concerning the proposed Settlement Agreement [see ECF Nos. 1327, 1338]. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Customs and Border Protection | Flores v. Garland |
$ 575,000
|
REDACTED | The U.S. Distict Court for the Central District of California granted plaintiffs' motion to enforce the Flores Settlement Agreement in June 2017. The parties later negotiated settlement of the plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees and costs. | settlement agreement | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Department of Justice | Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Citizenship and Im... | Mendez Rojas, et al. v. Wolf, et al. |
$ 552,077
|
REDACTED | Class action alleging that the DHS Defendants failed to provide asylum seekers with notice of the statutory deadline requiring filing of an asylum application within one year of arrival in the United States and alleging that DHS and EOIR Defendants failed to create a uniform procedural mechanism that ensures asylum seekers the opportunity to comply with that deadline. | Settlement Agreement | Show |