EAJA Awards
| Agency | Agency subcomponent | Name | Award date | Award amount | Awardees | Claims description | Finding basis | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. Department of the Interior | Bureau of Ocean Energy Management | Environmental Defense Center et al. v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management et al. |
$ 383,000
|
Environmental Defense Center; Center for Biological Diversity | Challenge to approvals of permits to drill and modify for well stimulation treatments, alleging violations of NEPA, ESA, and Coastal Zone Management Act. This represents BOEM's payment of 1/3 of settlement. A separate entry represents BSEE's payment of 1/3 of settlement. As noted - Judgment Fund paid 1/3 of settlement, related to ESA claim. | The court found that the programmatic environmental assessment failed to take the required "hard look" under NEPA because the it relied on faulty assumptions about the frequency of well stimulation treatments and the mitigating impacts of an EPA clean water act permit, and because it failed to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives. It also found that the agencies' decision not to prepare an EIS was arbitrary and capricious in light of the "largely unexplored" impacts of offshore fracking and because the record demonstrated "substantial questions relating to several significance factors about the effects of well stimulation treatments." | Show | |
| U.S. Department of the Interior | Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement | Environmental Defense Center et al. v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management et al. |
$ 383,000
|
Environmental Defense Center; Center for Biological Diversity | Challenge to approvals of permits to drill and modify for well stimulation treatments, alleging violations of the NEPA, ESA, and Coastal Zone Management Act. | See findings basis for BOEM. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Justice | Executive Office for Immigration Review | Northwest Immigrant Rights Project v. Garland |
$ 380,000
|
Davis Wright Tremain LLP | Litigation relating to representation by immigration practitioners | Settlement agreement | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Justice | Federal Bureau of Prisons | Richard Garries, et al. v. Louis Milusnic, et al. |
$ 375,000
|
Class Representatives Richard Garries and Andrew Ybarra | Inmates incarcerated at FCC Lompoc filed a habeas petition and direct action under the Constitution alleging unconstitutional conditions at the prisons related to COVID-19. The Court certified a class of inmates who were over the age of 50 and/or who had certain health conditions. Court also granted a preliminary injunction requiring the agency to review all current and future class members for placement on home confinement pursuant to the BOP's authority under the CARES Act. Parties agreed to settle the case with the agency continuing to take certain precautionary measures and continue conducting home confinement reviews under the terms of the preliminary injunction through December 17, 2022. | Settlement agreement. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Forest Service | WildEarth Guardians v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service |
$ 350,000
|
Steven Sugarman | 1) FSW did not base 2012 BiOps on the best available scientific information 2) No substantial evidence for the FWS's no-jeopardy and no-adverse modification findings in the 2012 BiOPs 3) 2012 BiOps do not contain an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts 4)Decision to issue eleven separate BiOps for the Region 3 national forests. 1) The ITSs are associated with the USFs implementation of the 1996 S&Gs 2) The ITSs utilize an reasonable proxy measure of incidental take which only captures the amount of MSPO take expected to occur within PACs. | Order issued 9/12/19 that the Forest Service timber management actions in region 3 national forests must cease pending formal consultation and reinitiate a formal Section (7)(a)(2) consultation and formulate superseding BiOps that conform with terms of this Order. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of the Interior | Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) | Center for Biological Diversity v. Fish and wildlife Service and Rosemont Copper Company |
$ 340,000
|
Fink, Cummings, Melton | Plaintiffs challenged FWS biological opinion under APA and ESA. Biological opinion was for the USFS permitting of the Rosemont Copper Mine. | Plaintiff argues that the FWS’ ITS is unlawful as it failed to choose a proper take surrogate for seven threatened or endangered species. The Court agrees. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Health and Human Services | Children, Family and Aging Division (CFAD) | Garza, Rochelle; 17cv02122 |
$ 336,710
|
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation | Class action challenging ORR policies or practices regarding UAC in care requesting abortion. | Settlement | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Forest Service | Bark et al v. United States Forest Service |
$ 312,730
|
Brenna Bella and Jennifer Schwartz | Violated NFMA by authorizing a project that is inconsistent with the applicable Forest Plan management directives. Violated the TRM by improperly claiming in its Decision Notice to have identified a minimum road system without addressing or explaining how the identified system is based on the factors listed at 36 C.F.R. § 212.5(b). Violated NEPA by issuance of the Crystal Clear Restoration Project EA/FONSI and Decision Notice. | Court finds that he Forest Service did not violate NEPA, the NFMA, or the TMR in approving the Crystal Clear Restoration project. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Forest Service | WildEarth Guardians et al v. Forson et al |
$ 308,742
|
Western Environmental Law Center, Oregon | Failed to execute its duties under the ESA by not initiating consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service on gray wolves. Claim added in Amended Complaint filed on 10/9/2017 and 10/23/2017. Decision is inconsistent with the Forest Plan (i.e., inconsistent with standards and guidelines for Rocky Mountain elk and mule deer habitat - disturbance during caving season; failed to comply with road density standards/guidelines; failure to minimize stream crossings; failed to comply with ROS (motorized trails in semi-primitive non-motorized areas); failed to comply with old growth and scabland area requirements (i.e., new road construction should be avoided). Failure to take a “hard look” at impacts (i.e., failure to provide accurate baseline data on road, sediment, elk and elk habitat, impacts to gray wolves, wolf habitat or wolf prey; failure to consider cumulative impacts - impacts from grazing on streams, sediment, vegetation; Blue Mountains Resiliency Project, unauthorized OHV use). Failed to demonstrate implementation of and compliance with “minimization criteria” (i.e., damage to soil, watersheds, vegetation, harassment of wildlife and destruction of habitat, minimize conflicts of forest users). | Failed to execute its duties under the ESA by not initiating consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service on gray wolves. 1) Failed to adequately demonstrate consistency with its Forest Plan regarding Standards and Guidelines associated with elk calving habitat and elk wallows; 2) Improperly amended INFISH “riparian management objectives” by relying on non-site-specific data; 3) Failed to demonstrate consistency with its own road density requirements; 4) Failed to comply with INFISH requirements in modifying Resource Management Objectives. 5) Failed to take a “hard look” at the Project’s effects on gray wolves. and elk security habitat vis-a-vis open and closed user-created roads. 6) Failure to disclose and analyze direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of elk-caving and rutting sites. 7) Cumulative impacts analysis was insufficient, and arbitrary and capricious, as to the road density and user-created and closed roads analysis. 8) Failed to comply with the Travel Management Rule’s minimization criteria. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) | Oceana, Inc. v. Raimondo, et al. |
$ 305,000
|
Oceana, Inc. | Challenge to Multi-Year Catch Rule issued on remand in related case for West Coast anchovy stocks for violation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and Administrative Procedure Act. | Settlement Agreement for attorneys fees and costs | Show | |
| 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 Health and Human Services | OS/OGC/Region 1 | Jonathan Bloom v. Burwell, 5:16-cv-00121-gwc (D.Vt. 2016) |
$ 302,488
|
Jonathan Bloom | EAJA fees were settled in this case as part of related Second Circuit litigation. However, the District Court had previously made finding that the Secretary's position in the litigation regarding non-coverage of Plaintiff's CGM was not substantially justified. (combine to case 19-00385) | 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 Agriculture | Forest Service | Center for Biological Diversity, Heartwood, Ohio Environmental Council, Sierra Club |
$ 300,000
|
Wendy S. Park, Diana Descale-Joffe, Nathan G. Johnson and Elizabeth Benson | 1) Claims failure to prepare a supplemental environmental review, and 2) claims BLM's preparation of an unlawful EA and FONSI or EIS. | On 4/18/18, the Southern District Court of Ohio determined the Forest Service and BLM failed to take the requisite "hard look" at the impacts of fracking in the Wayne National Forest prior to deciding to grant leases. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of the Interior | Bureau of Land Management | Center for Biological Diversity v. BLM |
$ 300,000
|
EarthJustice | Plaintiffs brought various claims under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4332 et seq., and the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1533 et seq., challenging Defendants’ decision to approve the Willow Master Development Plan in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. | The court granted in part an denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and enjoined the project. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Health and Human Services | OGC/CMSD | New Hampshire Hospital Association |
$ 296,333
|
New Hampshire Hospital Association (NHHA) | Plaintiffs challenged a Medicaid policy that was reflected in two FAQs. The district court found that the FAQs should have gone through notice and comment rulemaking and the appellate court agreed. | the Court concluded that NHHA was an eligible party under EAJA, and that Defendants have not satisfied their burden to show that their position was substantially justified. | Show |