768 F.3d 116
2d Cir.2014Background
- Prendergast, diagnosed with ALS, lost home health care benefits under Medicare Part C despite doctors’ orders.
- Prendergast filed for emergency relief in July 2008; district court held a TRO hearing and issued a TRO to preserve benefits through August 18, 2008.
- District court stated TRO based on serious questions going to merits and irreparable harm, not a merits determination.
- TRO temporarily reinstated benefits; later extensions and informal settlements kept coverage going until several months later, with no final merits ruling.
- After Prendergast’s death in 2010, Mastrio (administrator) pursued EAJA fees; district court awarded fees as prevailing party, then increased the award in 2013 to $78,914.54.
- Government appealed the EAJA award, arguing TRO cannot establish prevailing party status and that the TRO did not resolve merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a TRO confer prevailing party status under EAJA? | Mastrio contends TRO can establish prevailing party status under EAJA. | Sebelius argues TRO never establishes prevailing party status because it preserves status quo, not merits. | No; TRO alone does not establish prevailing party status. |
| Did the TRO in this case preserve the status quo or involve merits? | TRO altered the relationship by reinstating benefits. | TRO preserved status quo and did not address merits. | TRO merely returned to the status quo; it did not resolve merits. |
| Whether the district court’s reliance on merits determination existed to justify fees? | District court found merits-based relief supported fees. | No merits determination occurred; thus no prevailing party status. | Absence of merits determination defeats prevailing party status. |
Key Cases Cited
- LaRouche v. Kezer, 20 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 1994) (interim relief can be non-merits-based for purposes of prevailing party analysis)
- Christopher P. v. Marcus, 915 F.2d 794 (2d Cir. 1990) (TROs preserve status quo; not merits determinations)
- Bly v. McLeod, 605 F.2d 134 (4th Cir. 1979) (absent merits, TROs preserve status quo)
- Garcia v. Yonkers School District, 561 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2009) (TRO restore of benefits treated as status quo preservation, not merits)
- Haley v. Home Deport? (referenced as Haley, 106 F.3d 483 (2d Cir. 1997) (consideration of merits vs. status quo in TROs)