Cactus Canyon Quarries, Inc. v. Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission
820 F.3d 12
D.C. Cir.2016Background
- Cactus Canyon Quarries (operator of a surface non-coal mine) was issued seven MSHA citations in May 2013 with proposed $100 penalties each.
- Cactus Canyon contested the citations before the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission; the case was assigned to an ALJ and set for hearing.
- MSHA’s inspector who issued the citations became unavailable to testify; settlement efforts failed and the Secretary vacated the citations and moved to dismiss the proceedings.
- The ALJ dismissed the case in an order silent as to prejudice; Cactus Canyon sought EAJA attorney’s fees ($11,250) which the ALJ denied, finding Cactus Canyon was not a “prevailing party.”
- The Commission denied review; the D.C. Circuit reviewed de novo whether Cactus Canyon qualifies as a “prevailing party” under the EAJA and whether Buckhannon controls.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cactus Canyon) | Defendant's Argument (Secretary) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Buckhannon’s definition of “prevailing party” governs EAJA § 504(a)(1) in agency adjudications | Buckhannon should not control here because the Mine Act’s structure and EAJA legislative history support fee recovery when the agency vacates citations | Buckhannon applies to EAJA administrative fee claims; no good reason to depart from circuit precedent | Buckhannon applies; no “good reason” to depart (citing Green Aviation and Turner) |
| Whether Cactus Canyon was a “prevailing party” under Buckhannon/Turner after dismissal following vacatur | The dismissal (and prohibition on reissuing citations argued by petitioner) produced practical relief warranting EAJA fees | Vacatur and ALJ dismissal without prejudice did not effect a judicial change in the parties’ legal relationship; no judicially-ordered relief | Cactus Canyon is not a prevailing party; dismissal is treated as without prejudice (Turner-controlled), so no entitlement to EAJA fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep’t of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (defining “prevailing party” to require a judicially sanctioned change in the legal relationship of the parties)
- Green Aviation Mgmt. Co. v. FAA, 676 F.3d 200 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (applied Buckhannon to EAJA administrative-fee claims and rejected policy-based departures)
- Turner v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd., 608 F.3d 12 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (established three-part Buckhannon-derived test and treated silent ALJ dismissal as without prejudice for EAJA purposes)
- Jeroski v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 697 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2012) (rejected argument that EAJA legislative history entitles defendant to prevailing-party status after vacatur)
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (1990) (dismissal without prejudice does not have res judicata effect)
- UC Health v. NLRB, 803 F.3d 669 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (discussion on precedential weight and when prior decisions control later, similar cases)
- District of Columbia v. Straus, 590 F.3d 898 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (res judicata effect qualifies as judicial relief for prevailing-party purposes)