EAJA Awards
| Agency | Agency subcomponent | Name | Award date | Award amount | Awardees | Claims description | Finding basis | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) | Chursov v. Crandall |
$ 24,477
|
REDACTED | Null | Null | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) | Awais v. USCBP |
$ 14,000
|
REDACTED | Null | Null | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) | Morataya-Martinez v. U.S. Attorney General |
$ 7,000
|
REDACTED | Null | EAJA claim was settled. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | USCIS | Sathanthrasa v. Barr |
$ 12,972
|
REDACTED | PFR challenge to denial of asylum and witholding of removal. | Plaintiff was the prevailing party whose position was substantially justified. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | USCIS | Aguilar-Escoto v. Garland |
$ 37,289
|
REDACTED | Challenge to denial of withholding of removal which had been based on an adverse credibility finding | Settlement-stipulation of the parties | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Forest Service | Citizens for a Healthy Community; High Country Conservation Advocates; Center for Biological Diversity; and WildEarth Guardians |
$ 24,000
|
Kyle J. Tisdel | Failure to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives; Failure to take a ;SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF1. Failure to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives; Failure to Take a Hard Look at Cumulative Impacts of the Bull Mountain MDPFailure to Take a Hard Look at Cumulative Impacts of the Bull Mountain MDP | Failed to comply with NEPA by not taking a hard look at the reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts of oil and gas, particularly concerning the indirect impacts of combustions emissions associated with the projects. | Show | |
| Other Agency | National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) | Tamosiunas, et al., v. NLRB |
$ 13,750
|
Mark Tamosiunas | This case concerned billing of union dues to nonmembers. At a time when no union-security clause was in effect during contract renegotiations, UNITE HERE! Local 5 sent a letter to both members and nonmembers requesting payment of dues arrearages; it then caused employer Hyatt Corporation d/b/a Hyatt Regency Waikiki to begin deducting the purported arrearages from member and nonmember paychecks. After the Board upheld the dismissal of the unfair labor labor practice charges filed by the objecting employees, the D.C. Circuit overturned the Board's decision, and remanded the case to the Board. 892 F.3d 422 (D.C. Cir. 2018). | settlement agreement | Show | |
| Other Agency | National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) | Tamosiunas, et al., v. NLRB |
$ 13,750
|
Agnes Demarke | This case concerned billing of union dues to nonmembers. At a time when no union-security clause was in effect during contract renegotiations, UNITE HERE! Local 5 sent a letter to both members and nonmembers requesting payment of dues arrearages; it then caused employer Hyatt Corporation d/b/a Hyatt Regency Waikiki to begin deducting the purported arrearages from member and nonmember paychecks. After the Board upheld the dismissal of the unfair labor labor practice charges filed by the objecting employees, the D.C. Circuit overturned the Board's decision, and remanded the case to the Board. 892 F.3d 422 (D.C. Cir. 2018). | settlement agreement | Show | |
| Other Agency | National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) | Tamosiunas, et al., v. NLRB |
$ 13,750
|
Steve Taono | This case concerned billing of union dues to nonmembers. At a time when no union-security clause was in effect during contract renegotiations, UNITE HERE! Local 5 sent a letter to both members and nonmembers requesting payment of dues arrearages; it then caused employer Hyatt Corporation d/b/a Hyatt Regency Waikiki to begin deducting the purported arrearages from member and nonmember paychecks. After the Board upheld the dismissal of the unfair labor labor practice charges filed by the objecting employees, the D.C. Circuit overturned the Board's decision, and remanded the case to the Board. 892 F.3d 422 (D.C. Cir. 2018). | settlement agreement | Show | |
| Other Agency | National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) | Tamosiunas, et al., v. NLRB |
$ 13,750
|
Wayne Young | This case concerned billing of union dues to nonmembers. At a time when no union-security clause was in effect during contract renegotiations, UNITE HERE! Local 5 sent a letter to both members and nonmembers requesting payment of dues arrearages; it then caused employer Hyatt Corporation d/b/a Hyatt Regency Waikiki to begin deducting the purported arrearages from member and nonmember paychecks. After the Board upheld the dismissal of the unfair labor labor practice charges filed by the objecting employees, the D.C. Circuit overturned the Board's decision, and remanded the case to the Board. 892 F.3d 422 (D.C. Cir. 2018). | settlement agreement | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Health and Human Services | Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Division (CMS) | 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 | |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Forest Service | Conservation Northwest et al v. US Forest Service et al |
$ 90,000
|
Marla S. Fox | 1) Claims failure to initiate and complete consultation before adopting the Decision and publishing the 2020 use maps because those actions “may affect” ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat. 2) Failure to reinitiate and complete consultation before adopting the Decision and publishing the 2020 use maps. 1) Claims failure to provide sufficient advance public notice or a sufficient opportunity for the public to comment before finalizing its Decision and publishing the 2020 use maps. 2) Failed to complete the site-specific analysis required by NEPA for the Decision and 2020 use maps. 3) Failure to review the Decision and the 2020 use maps pursuant to NEPA, including the failure to take a hard look at the environmental impacts of or reasonable alternatives to its decision. Failure to provide notice and comment consistent with NEPA, including the requirements for scoping, before designating roads for new vehicle classes in its Decision and before publishing the 2020 use maps. | Motion to Determine Scope of Review for Claim filed by Petitioners. Hearing set without oral argument then continued. Stipulated Motion to Dismiss by Petitioners. Case dismissed with prejudice on 6/7/21. | 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 Agriculture | Forest Service | Save the Bull Trout and Alliance for the Wild Rockies |
$ 13,000
|
Timothy Bechtold and Rebecca K. Smith | 1) Claims that unpermitted incidental take of bull trout violates ESA. | On 3/15/20, the District Court of Montana issued an order dismissing the case with prejudice, with each party to abide by the agreed upon fee and cost stipulation agreement. | Show | |
| United States Department of Agriculture | Forest Service | Rocky Mountain Wild; San Louis Valley Ecosystem Council; San Juan Citizens Alliance; Wilderness Workshop |
$ 412,500
|
Matthew Sandler and Travis E. Stills | 1) Claims the EIS and NEPA process are based on an unlawfully narrow design of Federal Action with an unreasonably narrow Purpose and Need statement, 2) The range of alternatives considered is unlawfully narrow, 3) The denial of Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture expanded access request was inappropriately excluded from the alternatives, 4) Forest Service failed to involve cooperating agencies, 5) The FEIS fails to identify and analyze the effectiveness of available mitigation measures, 6) Consideration of connected actions is inadequate, 7) The FEIS failed to provide the public and decisionmaker with a hard look at direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the action, 8) There was undue influence and proponent control of NEPA process, and 9) There was a failure to conduct unbiased review of objections. | On May 19, 2017, the District Court of Colorado ruled that the Forest Service violated NEPA and set aside the Record of Decision authorizing the Land Exchange Order. | Show |