Green Aviation Management Co. v. Federal Aviation Administration
400 U.S. App. D.C. 151
D.C. Cir.2012Background
- Green Aviation petitioned for EAJA fees after FAA withdrew a complaint and ALJ dismissed with prejudice.
- FAA alleged ten passengers violated safety regs; Green Aviation argued daughter was non-required crew and allowed to ride jump seat.
- FAA later contended dismissal with prejudice lacked judicial imprimatur; Administrator denied Green Aviation prevailing party status under Buckhannon.
- ALJ had found Green Aviation prevailed for EAJA purposes but FAA's denial was sustained on appeal.
- Court holds that dismissal with prejudice provides judicial relief and creates res judicata, making Green Aviation a prevailing party.
- Remand to FAA to determine substantial justification and fee amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Buckhannon apply to EAJA §504(a)(1)? | Green Aviation argues Buckhannon should not control. | FAA argues Buckhannon governs. | Buckhannon applies to §504(a)(1). |
| Does dismissal with prejudice equal judicial relief under Buckhannon? | Dismissal with prejudice provides relief and reflects a judicial pronouncement. | Regulation-driven dismissal lacks discretion and thus no judicial relief. | Dismissal with prejudice constitutes judicial relief. |
| Did Green Aviation become a prevailing party due to the dismissal? | Res judicata and final end to proceedings favor prevailing party status. | No prevailing party because relief was administrative, not judicial. | Green Aviation is a prevailing party. |
| Should the matter be remanded to determine substantial justification and fee amount? | If prevailing, fee amount must be determined; substantial justification must be reviewed. | Remand unnecessary if not prevailing. | Remand warranted to determine substantial justification and fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep't of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (U.S. 2001) (defines 'prevailing party' requiring judicial relief)
- Turner v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd., 608 F.3d 12 (D.C.Cir. 2010) (three-part test for 'prevailing party' in administrative statute)
- Dist. of Columbia v. Straus, 590 F.3d 898 (D.C.Cir. 2010) (explains judicial relief as part of 'prevailing party' analysis)
- Alegria v. Dist. of Columbia, 391 F.3d 262 (D.C.Cir. 2004) (applies Buckhannon to EAJA-related fee awards)
- Thomas v. Nat'l Sci. Found., 330 F.3d 486 (D.C.Cir. 2003) (applies Buckhannon to administrative contexts; discusses discretion)
- Oil, Chem., & Atomic Workers Int'l Union v. Dep't of Energy, 288 F.3d 452 (D.C.Cir. 2002) (Buckhannon-like interpretation in administrative fee context)
- LePage's 2000, Inc. v. Postal Regulatory Comm'n, 674 F.3d 862 (D.C.Cir. 2012) (EAJA fee-shifting and administrative relief considerations)