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 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 Agriculture Forest Service Klamath Forest Alliance
$ 37,000
Meriel L. Darzen Violated NEPA by unlawful use of inapplicable categorical exclusion and arbitrary conclusion that no extraordinary circumstances are present. Violated NEPA by unlawful use of inapplicable categorical exclusion and arbitrary conclusion that no extraordinary circumstances are present. Show
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Environmental Protection Information Center v. Carlson et al
$ 191,000
Rene P. Voss and Matt Kenna Violated NEPA by approving the Ranch Fore Roadside Fire Project. The FS will not proceed with the following previously-approved commercial timber sales: Bartlett Roadside Fire Salvage; Deer Valley Roadside Fire Salvage;M3 Roadside Fire Salvage;M5-Pacific Roadside Fire Salvage; M10 West Roadside Fire Salvage; or Pine Mountain Roadside Fire Salvage. Show
U.S. Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement Tomasa Romero Solis v. L. Francis Cissna
$ 70,000
Tomasa Romero Solis, Heriberto Gonzalez Najera, Anareli Mendiola Romero, Edgar Mendiola Romero, Juan Mendiola Romero, Lorena Roblero Berduo, Estela Cruz Hernandez, Juan Miguel Gonzalez, Maria Solano Martinez, Catalina Garcia Santiago, Vinicio Perez Gutierrez, Andrea Pioquinto Mata, Adrian Hernandez Lopez, Adela Morales Gonzalez, Adelmira Morales Perez, Leobardo Roblero Gonzalez, Osmar Roblero Morales, Dulce Roblero Morales, Exal Roblero Morales, Rita Edali Roblero Morales, Francisco Perez Gutierrez, Evelia Barrientos Urias, and Gilberto Garcia Uriostegui Unreasonably delayed processing of petitions for nonimmigrant status, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). Settlement Agreement Show
Other Agency Environmental Protection Agency Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
$ 29,700
Earthjustice Unreasonable delay suit regarding finalization of 2000 proposed rule to add diisononyl phthalate (DINP) to the EPCRA section 313 toxic chemical list (i.e., the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)) Settlement Agreement Show
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Food Safety v. Azar
$ 14,888
Center for Food Safety and Center for Environmental Health (Plaintiffs) Unreasonable delay Settlement, but no finding that government position was not substantially justified Show
U.S. Department of Defense Department of the Air Force Sloan v. United States
$ 10,000
National Veterans Legal Services Program Inc. This was an action for combat related special compensation (CRSC) pay that Plaintiff alleged the USAF unlawfully failed to provide Plaintiff as a result of the USAF's Board for Correction of Military Records' (AFBCMR) findings that his disabilities were not combat-related pursuant to 10 USC 1413a. Plaintiff alleged various violations of the APA, 5 USC 706(2)(A). The agency was not substantially jusitifed in denying Plaintiff's case at the AFBCMR because he did, in fact, file his case within the 3 year requirement of 10 USC 1552(b); the CRSC board utilized an incorrect standard of proof; the AFBCMR failed to obtain a required advisory opinion; the AFBCMR ignored Plaintiff's requests to assist him in obtaining medical records; the AFBCMR failed to consider Plaintiff's response to the initial advisory opinion; and the AFBCMR decision was bereft of serious analysis. Show
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Native Ecosystems Coucil v. BLM
$ 70,000
Thomas Woodbury This matter involves four separate Environmental Assessments with Findings of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI), as well as four separate decisions (Decision, or collectively the Challenged Decisions) completed by the BLM Dillon Field Office in connection with 4 watersheds. All of the Challenged Decisions provided for vegetation treatments targeting reduction of conifer encroachment in various areas within each watershed. Plaintiff filed an action in the District of Montana, seeking in part to have the BLM enjoined from conducting any activities in connection with the Challenged Decisions. The Plaintiff asserted that the BLM violated NEPA and FLPMA. The judge entered an order granting partial summary judgment in favor of BLM on all claims except one FLPMA claim in connection with a single watershed. The court determined that the BLM failed to supplement one EA to incorporate additional analysis as required by the applicable ARMPA for sage grouse. Show
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Katherns v. Zinke
$ 165,215
Virginia Sue Katherns This case is the last remaining challenge to BLM’s 2018 decision to conduct a spay study on wild horses from the Warm Springs Herd Management Area in the Burns District of Oregon. Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction, which the court granted on November 13, 2018. In March 2020, the court lifted the stay and dismissed the case with prejudice. Court ruled against agency on First Amendment claim and an Administrative Procedure Act claim. On December 4, 2020, the court issued an order awarding plaintiffs' fees and costs of $183,572.40. BLM, through DOJ, negotiated a settlement amount of $165,215.00. Show
U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection Jane Doe v. Mayorkas
$ 3,832,052
REDACTED This case is a class action lawsuit disputing conditions of detention in Tucson Sector Border Patrol facilities on various Constitutional grounds. The Court found that the reasonable time from book-in at a Tucson Sector Border Patrol station to “processing complete” is no longer than 48 hours. As for this duration of time, Defendants have established that the challenged conditions of confinement, separately and aggregately, are not excessive in relation to the legitimate government interests of Tucson Sector Border Patrol's 24-7 operations or the penological interests involved in Plaintiffs' civil detention in immigration facilities. However, these conditions violate the Fifth Amendment when individuals who are "processing complete" are held beyond 48 hours, at which point CBP must provide conditions of confinement that meet basic human needs for sleeping in a bed with a blanket, a shower, food that meets acceptable dietary standards, potable water, and medical assessments performed by a medical professional. Show
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Cascadia Wildlands v. Bureau of Land Management
$ 30,000
Western Environmental Law Center This case involved a challenge to the BLM's development of a 2020 Categorical Exclusion for salvage projects and the Upper Willamette Field Office's Harvest Land Base salvage project in Oregon. The complaint alleged violations of the FLPMA, NEPA, and ESA. Parties agreed to a settlement and BLM will issue a Federal Register notice proposing to eliminate the Salvage CX from the Department's NEPA implementing procedures for the BLM at Chapter 11 of Part 516 of the Departmental Manual, and will exercise best efforts to complete the administrative process and to issue a new decision on this proposal by September 2024. Show
U.S. Department of Homeland Security USCIS W.A.O. v. Jaddou, et al.
$ 503,837
REDACTED This case challenged the USCIS policy regarding competent jurisdiction for qualifying reunification determinations as applied to SIJ orders issued under the New Jersey Family Part. The plaintiffs claimed that USCIS had a policy of disqualifying 18-21-year-old applicants from SIJ status. Settlement-stipulation of the parties Show
U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Rodriguez-Castillo v. Nielsen, et al.
$ 190,718
Gustavo Rodriquez Castillo, Gabriela M. Lopez, Immigrant Defenders Law Center This case challenged the detention of immigration detainees at the Federal Correctional Institution at Victorville, California. Plaintiffs claimed a denial of attorney access violated their due process and First Amendment rights, and that Defendants’ policies regarding access to attorneys violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Immigration and Nationality Act. The court ruled that the Defendants’ assertion that confining detainees at a facility for convicted criminals complicated access to counsel does not justify Defendants’ position. Show
U.S. Department of Labor WHD Administrator v. Graham and Rollins, Inc. (original ALJ hearing) and In Re Graham and Rollins, Inc. (appeal case before ARB)
$ 22,100
Leon R. Sequeira (counsel for Respondent Graham and Rollins, Inc.) The Wage and Hour Division (WHD) investigated Respondent for compliance with H-2B regulations. The WHD determined that Respondent had committed violations of the H-2B requirements, and Respondent requested a hearing with an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). On June 26, 2018, the ALJ dismissed the case finding that the pertinent statute of limitations barred the proceedings. Respondent filed an application for attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the EAJA. On May 19, 2021, the ALJ issued a Recommended Decision and Order Awarding Attorney’s Fees, concluding that the EAJA applied, and that the Administrator of the WHD failed to demonstrate that her position in the matter was substantially justified. Show
U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection Rosales-Calix v. Garland
$ 4,475
REDACTED The United States moved for an unopposed remand to permit the Board of Immigration Appeals to address more fully Petitioner's claim that she did not have a duty to update the immigration court of her change of address under the circumstances. Following remand, counsel filed a claim for attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2412(b). Settlement Agreement Show
Viewing 15 of 73710 results