797 F.3d 1
D.C. Cir.2015Background
- Haselwander appealed an Army Board for Correction of Military Records decision via district court remand, seeking EAJA attorney’s fees and costs.
- Court denied costs for being untimely under Rule 39(d)(1) and 14-day deadline; EAJA limits apply separately from Rule 39.
- Court found Government’s position not substantially justified; Haselwander prevailed by vacating the Board’s decision as arbitrary and capricious.
- EAJA fees were supported by eligibility as a prevailing party and net worth under $2,000,000, based on record evidence.
- Requested fees exceeded statutory caps; counsel’s hours were excessive and not adequately documented, necessitating reductions and adjustments.
- Court awarded $7,981.41 in attorney’s fees after reducing hours by one-third, removing enhancements, and applying cost-of-living adjustments to the statutory rate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of costs | Haselwander seeks costs under Rule 39; timely filing questioned. | Government argues untimeliness under Rule 39(d)(1) for costs. | Costs denied as untimely. |
| EAJA eligibility as prevailing party and net worth | Haselwander qualifies as prevailing party; net worth under $2M shown by record. | No challenge to eligibility beyond net worth evidence; Government acknowledged some aspects. | Haselwander is an eligible prevailing party. |
| Reasonableness of requested attorney’s fees | Fees justified by hours and efforts under EAJA. | Hours excessive and inadequately documented; enhancements improper. | Hours reduced by one-third; fee amount capped and adjusted. |
| Appropriate hourly rate under EAJA | Eligible rate may exceed $125 with enhancements for cost of living. | Cap is $125 unless COI adjustment applies; no special-factor enhancements allowed. | Adjusted rate applied; no special-factor enhancements; total award set at $7,981.41. |
| Use of Laffey Matrix and documentation deficiencies | Laffey Matrix could justify higher rates for experience. | Laffey Matrix inappropriate where EAJA statutory cap applies. | Laffey enhancement rejected; documentation deficiencies necessitated reductions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Haselwander v. McHugh, 774 F.3d 990 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (vacate Board decision; remand regarding Purple Heart eligibility)
- Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club, 463 U.S. 680 (Sup. Ct. 1983) (EAJA when interpreting 'costs' and sovereign immunity)
- Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (Sup. Ct. 1993) (prevailing party status for reversal of agency action)
- In re Sealed Case, 890 F.2d 451 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (documentation standards for fee petitions; per curiam)
- Role Models Am., Inc. v. Brownlee, 353 F.3d 962 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (special-factor enhancements; statutory cap governs EAJA fees)
- Porter v. Astrue, 999 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C. 2013) (COI adjustment methodology for EAJA fees)
- Hirschey v. FERC, 760 F.2d 305 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (record evidence may establish financial qualifications under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(B))
- Sosebee v. Astrue, 494 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2007) (financial qualifications for EAJA eligibility)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (Sup. Ct. 1983) (reasonableness and allocation of attorney’s hours)