EAJA Awards

Agency Agency subcomponent Name Award date Award amount Awardees Claims description Finding basis Actions
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Ginger Kathrens and the Cloud Foundation v. Bernhardt
$ 45,000
Meyer, Glitzenstein & Eubanks, LLP Complaint alleging that Federal Defendants violated the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. TRO granted, BLM enjoined from proceeding. BLM has withdrawn DR. 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 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 Health and Human Services OGC/R01 Lewis, Carol v. Burwell, C.A. No. 1:15-cv-13530-NMG (D. Mass.)
$ 49,477
Debra Parrish Law Offices (Ms. Lewis assigned her right to payment to her attorney) Plaintiff appealed the denial of coverage for a CGM. The Judge found that the Secretary’s position in the litigation was not substantially justified because 55 ALJs had previously determined that continuous glucose monitors (“CGMs”) were covered by Medicare and no professional in the healthcare industry was of the opinion that CGMs were not primarily and customarily used for medical purposes, amongst other reasons. The Memorandum and Order is in the Documents section of the TRACS matter. Show
Other Agency Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste, et. al. v. Pruitt
$ 236,363
Earthjustice and Farmworker Justice Plaintiffs alleged that EPA rules delaying the effective date of the pesticide certified applicator rule violated the APA and FIFRA. The district court held that in delaying the effective date of the applicator rule, EPA engaged in substantive rulemaking and was required to comply with the APA, but did not do so. Show
Other Agency Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) South Carolina Coastal Conservation League v. Pruitt
$ 105,000
South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, Charleston Waterkeeper, American Rivers, Chattahoochee Riverkeeper, Clean Water Action, Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the Rappahannock, North Carolina Coastal Federation, and North Carolina Wildlife Federation Plaintiffs alleged that the Final Rule, Definition of "Waters of the U.S."-Addition of an Applicability Date to 2015 Clean Water Rule, 83 Fed. Reg. 5,200 (Feb. 6, 2018), was unlawful and arbitrary under the APA. The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and vacated and enjoined the rule nationwide, holding that the agency had failed to meet the requirements of the APA. Show
U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review (DOJ EOIR); Department o... Kharis v. Sessions
$ 10,000
Alexey Kharis Immigration habeas corpus petition challenging petitioner’s detention without a bond hearing. The district court found that the government committed a due process violation, and the Ninth Circuit has held that a denial of due process rights “precludes a finding that [the government’s] position was substantially justified.” Yang v. Shalala, 22 F.3d 213, 217 (9th Cir. 1994); see also United States v. $12,248 U.S. Currency, 957 F.2d 1513, 1517 (9th Cir. 1991). Fee award paid jointly by DOJ and DHS (50% each). Show
U.S. Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) Acosta v. Ricardo Silva, et al
$ 87,824
AmeriGuard Security Services, Inc. AmeriGuard filed a request for attorney fees under EAJA arguing that the Secretary was not substantially justified in alleging that AmeriGuard breached fiduciary duties owed to the Maryland Association of Correctional and Security Employees Health and Welfare Plan (Health Plan) and the Maryland Association of Correctional and Security Employees Retirement Plan (Retirement Plan), (collectively, Plans). We alleged that AmeriGuard breached fiduciary duties owed to the Plans under ERISA when it failed to insure that the Plans were administered by an equal number of employee and employer representatives as mandated by the Taft-Hartley Act. The district court concluded that AmeriGuard was a prevailing party as it was fully successful in obtaining a summary judgment decision in its favor. The court also concluded that the Secretary was not substantially justified in bringing this case because the facts and the law did not support that AmeriGuard was a fiduciary to the Plans and held, over our objection, that AmeriGuard had no authority or control over the Plans. The court further determined that AmeriGuard was eligible to receive an award under EAJA because it had a net worth of less than $7 million and fewer than 500 employees at the time the suit was filed. Show
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Native Ecosystems Council and Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. BLM
$ 100,000
Akland Law Firm, PLLC Complaint alleging that Defendants violated the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act in issuing the Decision Record, Iron Mask Planning Area Environmental Assessment, Decision Record for Vegetation and Riparian Treatments, Iron Mask Planning Area Environmental Assessment, and Final Grazing Decision and Response to Protest - Indian Creek Forage Reserve. The court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment in part finding that BLM's cumulative impacts analysis did not comply with NEPA. The court remanded the matter for the BLM to conduct supplemental NEPA. Show
Other Agency Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Sierra Club v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
$ 136,230
Flint Riverkeeper and Chattahoochee Riverkeeper The fee award arose from the Court's determination that the Commission violated NEPA by failing to calculate and consider the environmental effects of emissions stemming from the end use of the natural gas transported on a FERC-jurisdictional pipeline. The Court found that the Commission's position that NEPA did not require the calculation and consideration of end use emissions was not substantially justified. Show
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services OGC/R01 Jonathan Bloom v. Burwell, 5:16-cv-00121-gwc (D.Vt. 2016)
$ 118,829
Plaintiff's Counsel NOTE: This is an estimate of an EAJA award based on the Court's order, dated January 16, 2019, that Plaintiff was entitled to fees under EAJA. The Court is allowing the government to brief the issue of reasonableness and make line-by-line objections to the fee requests submitted by plaintiff's attorneys. However, bceause a Second Circuit appeal is also pending in this case, the parties agreed to stay briefing on the issue of reasonableness until the Second Circuit case is decided. The Court determined that the Secretary's litigation position was not substantially justified. The Court determined that Attorney Debra Parrish was entitled to a special factor enhancement as a result of her particular experience with cases involving requests by Medicare beneficiaries for coverage of continuous glucose monitors. On the other hand, the Court rejected Plaintiff’s argument that the other members of his legal team were entitled to an enhanced fee rate. The Court also accepted the Secretary’s argument that EAJA fees should not be awarded for issues litigated and decided in the Secretary’s favor. The Court then provided the parties with a limited opportunity for supplemental briefing, in order to address what should be a reasonable award of fees in this matter. Show
U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) Sanchez v. Barr
$ 8,000
REDACTED Petition for review of BIA decision denying petitioners' untimely request for reopening based on an allegation of ineffective assistance of former counsel. Petitioners claimed their former attorneys were ineffective because those attorneys told them not to file for asylum. The former attorneys filed an application for cancellation of removal that was denied. The Court determined that the Board abused its discretion in denying Petitioners' motion to reopen as untimely. The Court explained that the Board failed to consider Petitioners' contentions that the notario and attorney who prepared their 2003 asylum and cancellation of removal applications provided false information in the applications and failed to solicit information concerning the asylum claim. 755 F. App'x at 668 (citing Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005)). The Board's failure to address those contentions, the Court stated, "undermines its grounds for rejecting equitable tolling of the filing deadline because the BIA's analysis relies on dates and other information in those applications that petitioners allege were falsely provided due to the ineffective assistance." Id. The Court further determined that the Board failed to explain its conclusion that Petitioners, "having alleged that the female petitioner was persecuted by a local political figure, and was rebuffed when she sought assistant from local authorities, did not present a colorable asylum claim." Id. (citing Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 1014, 1027 (9th Cir. 2004) (in assessing whether a petitioner was prejudiced by incompetent counsel, this court "must consider the underlying merits of the case to come to a tentative conclusion as to whether [the petitioner's] claim, if properly presented, would be viable")Remanded to BIA. EAJA claim was settled. 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
U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) REDACTED v. Whitaker
$ 27,764
REDACTED Petition for review The Board of Immigration Appeals abused its discretion by failing to find that the alien was prejudiced by his prior counsel’s ineffectiveness, and by failing to provide a reasoned decision addressing his request to reopen sua sponte because he was eligible for adjustment of status based on the discharge of a prior New York state conviction. Show
U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review (DOJ EOIR); Department o... Gbotoe v. Jennings
$ 14,147
Aaron Gbotoe Immigration habeas corpus petition claiming that petitioner’s removal from the United States prior to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ adjudication of his motion to reopen was a statutory and constitutional violation. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) had summarily denied Petitioner’s motion to stay his removal. The District Court granted Gbotoe’s fee petition in part, finding that the Government’s position was not substantially justified because the BIA’s denial of the stay motion was not reasonable. The Court acknowledged that the Immigration Judge’s position and the government's litigating position were reasonable, and specifically noted that “the jurisdictional issue implicated by Gbotoe’s petition was (and remains) far from settled,” but based his finding of no substantial justification entirely on the BIA’s denial of the stay motion. Fee award paid jointly by DOJ and DHS (50% each). Show