EAJA Awards

Agency Agency subcomponent Name Award date Award amount Awardees Claims description Finding basis Actions
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Klamath Forest Alliance v. Blower et al
$ 37,000
Meriel L. Darzen Violated NEPA by unlawful use of inapplicable categorical exclusion and arbitrary conclusion that no extraordinary circumstances are present. Failure to make a rational determination that the proposed commercial salvage logging operations and green tree removal in LSRs is consistent with the NWFP and the Forest Plan. Failure to explain how the Slater Fire Safe Re-entry Project is consistent with the NWFP and the Forest Plan violates NFMA. Plaintiff intends to add a claim under ESA section 7 upon expiration of the 60-day notice period. On 8/27/21 Court grants Joint Motion for Stay. Order signed approving settlement and stipulated dismissal 10/21/21. Show
U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry & Security; International Trade Administratio... WeChat Users Alliance, et al. v. Trump and Ross
$ 900,000
Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld, LLP DOC Prohibitions violate the APA; violation of First Amend (Free Speech Cl.); Executive Order violates violat Fifth Amend (Due Process Cl. And Takings Cl.) and is ultra vires; IEEPA violates "Non-Delegation Doctrine." Settlement Agreement for attorneys fees at significant discount from original fee claims with costs paid by Department of Justice Show
Social Security Administration Null [Redacted] v Commissioner of Social Security
$ 7,000
[Redacted] Action for Judicial Review of the Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under the Social Security Act [Redacted] Show
Social Security Administration Null [Redacted] v Commissioner of Social Security
$ 4,026
[Redacted] Action for Judicial Review of the Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under the Social Security Act [Redacted] Show
Social Security Administration Null [Redacted] v Commissioner of Social Security
$ 5,500
[Redacted] Action for Judicial Review of the Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under the Social Security Act [Redacted] Show
Social Security Administration Null [Redacted] v Commissioner of Social Security
$ 5,017
[Redacted] Action for Judicial Review of the Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under the Social Security Act [Redacted] Show
Social Security Administration Null [Redacted] v Commissioner of Social Security
$ 1,378
[Redacted] Action for Judicial Review of the Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under the Social Security Act [Redacted] Show
Social Security Administration Null [Redacted] v Commissioner of Social Security
$ 449
[Redacted] Action for Judicial Review of the Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under the Social Security Act [Redacted] Show
Social Security Administration Null [Redacted] v Commissioner of Social Security
$ 4,404
[Redacted] Action for Judicial Review of the Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under the Social Security Act [Redacted] Show
Social Security Administration Null [Redacted] v Commissioner of Social Security
$ 6,700
[Redacted] Action for Judicial Review of the Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under the Social Security Act [Redacted] Show
Social Security Administration Null [Redacted] v Commissioner of Social Security
$ 7,500
[Redacted] Action for Judicial Review of the Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under the Social Security Act [Redacted] Show
Social Security Administration Null [Redacted] v Commissioner of Social Security
$ 6,750
[Redacted] Action for Judicial Review of the Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under the Social Security Act [Redacted] Show
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Georgia ForestWatch et al v. United States Forest Service
$ 30,000
Patrick Hunter 1)Claims the approval of the Cooper Creek Project was a violation 2) Erred in refusing to consider the reasonable alternative recommended by conservation groups 3) Failure to assess and disclose the environmental impacts of the Cooper Creek Project on Roadless Areas. 4) Failure to consider reasonable alternatives 2)Failure to disclose the effects the Cooper Creek Project would have on two areas that are unfragmented by roads, utility corridors, and past logging, and are eligible for inclusion in the next potential wilderness inventory. 5) Failing to address and disclose the impact of the project on roadless areas Motion to Stay initially granted on 8/14/20 and last order granted on 8/18/20. Dismissal order entered on 8/27/21 after settlement agreement was reached. Show
Social Security Administration Null [Redacted] v Commissioner of Social Security
$ 7,316
[Redacted] Action for Judicial Review of the Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under the Social Security Act [Redacted] Show
U.S. Department of Homeland Security USCIS Neupane v. Garland
$ 11,000
REDACTED PFR challenge to denial of asylum and witholding of removal. Plaintiff was the prevailing party whose position was substantially justified. Show