LePage's 2000, Inc. v. Postal Regulatory Commission
400 U.S. App. D.C. 79
D.C. Cir.2012Background
- LePage's petitioned for EAJA fees after this court vacated and remanded the PRC Phase II order as arbitrary and capricious.
- The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act created the PRC to evaluate and sustain nonpostal services or license-based programs, including ReadyPost, Bears and Scales, and Bubblewrap.
- Phase I found ReadyPost a postal service and Bubblewrap nonpostal; Phase II scrutinized Bubblewrap and concluded no public need and private-sector feasibility, prompting this appeal.
- This court vacated the Phase II order, citing numerous inconsistencies and a slapdash approach, and remanded for a reasoned remand remedying the defects.
- LePage's seeks an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses under EAJA; PRC concedes LePage's prevailed but argues substantial justification and non-recoverability of some fees. The court awards partial fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LePage's is a prevailing party under EAJA | LePage's prevailed by vacating and remanding the Phase II order. | Prevailing status admitted but offset by substantial justification. | Yes, LePage's is a prevailing party. |
| Whether the PRC's position was substantially justified under EAJA | PRC's position was not substantially justified. | Position was substantially justified per Rose/Hill standards. | No, PRC's position was not substantially justified. |
| Whether EAJA fees incurred during PRC administrative proceedings are recoverable | Fees incurred in PRC proceedings are recoverable under EAJA. | Administrative-fee portion is not recoverable; only court-record fees. | Not recoverable; only fees incurred in court proceedings are eligible. |
| What fee amount is recoverable | Total requested: $143,693.49, reduced by non-recoverable PRC-proceeding fees. | Subtract PRC-proceeding fees; dispute only whether to include certain entries. | Recoverable amount: $102,664.73. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 () (definition of 'substantially justified' standard)
- FEC v. Rose, 806 F.2d 1081 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (limits and application of substantial justification standard)
- Hill v. Gould, 555 F.3d 1003 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (substantial justification not present when authority is consistent but defective)
- Halverson v. Slater, 206 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (burden on government to prove substantial justification)
- LePage's 2000, Inc. v. Postal Regulatory Comm., 642 F.3d 225 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (vacatur/remand for a deficient Phase II order; anomalies and slapdash proceedings)