En Banc Hearing Makes A Number Of Cutting EAJA Fee Shifting Determinations.
Well, we are all in a New Year (2019 to be exact), everyone. Top of the Year, with the Ninth Circuit providing an en banc decision of importance in the civil rights/EAJA fee-shifting area.
In Ibrahim v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, Nos. 14-16161/14-17272 (9th Cir. Jan. 2, 2019) (published), the Ninth Circuit, in an en banc hearing, had to confront Dr. Ibrahim’s successful challenge to TSA’s “No Fly” list policy, where she was placed on the list although the U.S. government had to admit she was placed on it erroneously and inadvertently, even though the government tried to deadpan the effects. This did not resonate with the Ninth Circuit en banc majority (and much of the other circuit justices in concurring or even dissenting), which did not like the district court’s award of only $419.987.36 in EAJA fees and $34,768.71 in expenses as against the fees request of $3.63 million and costs request of $293,860.18 when plaintiff clearly prevailed completely on one claim.
The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the fee award, in the process making these determinations:
*Where a plaintiff obtains complete success on one claim, which makes it unnecessary for a district court to even reach other alternative claims, that qualified as being a successful party;
*Where there is a true common core of facts or course of conduct, prevailing on one successful claim makes other claims compensable, rejecting a post hoc “mutual exclusivity” test under the circumstances; and
*Determining whether the government’s position was in bad faith (so as to limit EAJA fees to $125 per hour if bad faith is not shown) means a look at the government’s position as a whole in the case rather than at each stage of the litigation.
Based on these determinations, a remand was made to award—in our view, a substantially different and greater award—based on the excellent outcome obtained by plaintiff’s counsel.
The dissent would have not restudied the “lack of bad faith” determination by the district judge so as to cap EAJA fees on remand at $125 per hour.
Comments