96 Fed. Cl. 771
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- Greenhill sought $83,750 in EAJA attorneys’ fees and $1,793.36 in costs after prevailing on a breach-of-settlement-contract claim against the United States.
- The case arose from a DOE reference decision and DOJ pre-employment investigation that allegedly breached the neutral reference and background-inquiry provisions of a settlement agreement.
- The court found Brayboy breached the contract by providing false/derogatory statements to DOJ, while other breach theories failed, resulting in $3,948 in damages awarded to Greenhill.
- Greenhill moved for EAJA fees and costs; the Government contended no award or only a heavily discounted award was warranted.
- The court awarded EAJA fees in a reduced amount and full costs; it applied a 60% reduction for partial success and a COLA-adjusted rate for counsel.
- The final judgment awarded $25,751.66 total: $23,958.30 in attorneys’ fees and $1,793.36 in costs or, alternatively, reasonable EAJA expenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Greenhill incurred fees and costs under EAJA | Greenhill incurred fees via attorney-retainer relationship. | No incurrence without a specific retainer obligation beyond $1,000. | Yes; incurrence shown by retainer and attorney-client relationship. |
| Whether the Government's position was substantially justified | Government's position failed under trial evidence on Brayboy's breach. | Some positions were substantially justified (e.g., within-file documents). | Overall not substantially justified; egregious misalignment with evidence warranted fee award. |
| Whether special circumstances preclude an EAJA award | No special circumstances to render award unjust. | Unclean hands and delays may render award unjust. | Special circumstances did not defeat entitlement. |
| Whether and how much fees must be reduced for partial success and COLA | No reduction beyond COLA; enhanced rate justified by expertise. | Significant reduction warranted due to partial success and lack of special factors. | Fees reduced by 60% for partial success; COLA applied within statutory cap; total award adjusted accordingly. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (1988) (substantially justified standard for government positions)
- INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154 (1990) (prevailing party and fee-shifting criteria under EAJA)
- Scarborough v. Principi, 541 U.S. 401 (2004) (substantial justification; consideration of overall government conduct)
- Libas, Ltd. v. United States, 314 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (weighing overall government conduct for substantial justification)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (reasonableness and partial-success reductions in fee awards)
- Garrett v. United States, 2 F.3d 1143 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (ratio-based consideration of fees relative to success)
- Hubbard v. United States, 480 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (reversal/remand on fee awards for excessive awards relative to damages)
- Baldi Bros. Constructors v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 78 (2002) (percentage reductions in fees applicable to EAJA applications)