Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Prevailing Plaintiff Awarded Only Partial Fees Under EAJA Wins Reversal And Remand For Award Of Fully Requested Fees In Case Challenging Social Security Administration’s Denial Of Disability Benefits

Prevailing Plaintiff’s EAJA Fees Could Not Be Reduced Because She Raised Alternative Theories To Support A Single Claim, Even Though The Court Did Not Reach The Alternative Theories In Rendering Judgment In Plaintiff’s Favor.

            The Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) requires the award of “reasonable attorney fees” to “a prevailing party other than the United States” ” in “any civil action (other than cases sounding in tort)” that are “brought by or against the United States,” “including proceedings for judicial review of agency action, . . . unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), (2)(A).

            In Nerio Mejia v. O’Malley, Case No. 23-3162 (9^th Cir. November 4, 2024) (published), plaintiff prevailed in a lawsuit challenging the Social Security Administration’s denial of her disability benefits, then moved for $13,426.42 in attorneys’ fees under the EAJA.  The district court determined that the SSA’s position was not substantially justified and that plaintiff was entitled to fees under the EAJA.  However, relying on Hardisty v. Astrue, 592 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2010), the district court awarded only a reduced amount – excluding fees incurred to develop two alternative arguments the district court determined it did not need to reach to render judgment for plaintiff.  

            Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983), along with its en banc decision in Ibrahim v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 912 F.3d 1147 (9^th Cir. 2019) – both of which hold that sufficient grounds for reducing a fee award do not exist where a court rejects or fails to reach alternative legal grounds for a desired outcome  – the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to award the full amount of requested fees.  In so doing, the panel determined that the district court’s application of Hardisty in this case was legal error.  Although, like here, there were undecided arguments in Hardisty, the determining factor in Hardisty for denial of fee eligibility under the EAJA was whether the United States’ position was substantially justified - not whether fees were incurred to develop undecided arguments.