Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Ass'n v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
675 F.3d 1036
7th Cir.2012Background
- The Seventh Circuit vacated FMCSA's rule on electronic monitoring in commercial trucks in a prior decision.
- Three drivers (Culligan, Burnett, Oldham) and OOIDA sought EAJA fees; FMCSA objected.
- OOIDA, not a fee-petition party, argued only it could be liable for fees.
- Court examines whether petitioners are “prevailing parties” eligible for EAJA under net worth limits.
- Court applies Unification Church and AARP factors to determine if an implicit arrangement makes petitioners ineligible.
- Court denies the motion for attorneys’ fees to the individual petitioners.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are individuals eligible for EAJA fees when OOIDA pays the fees? | Culligan/Burnett/Oldham meet net worth; OOIDA pays fees. | Fee award should not go to individuals if OOIDA funds the fees. | No, individuals not eligible for EAJA fees. |
| Does the stand-in litigant concern apply to this fee request? | Separate agreements do not create a single unrelated fee payer. | Implicit arrangement with OOIDA paying fees violates EAJA eligibility. | Yes, stand-in concern supports ineligibility. |
| What factors from AARP/Unification Church govern eligibility? | No umbrella fee arrangement; drivers pursued independently. | Agency should consider overall fee payer and relationships. | Factors show ineligibility due to arrangement and disparate wealth. |
| Would an EAJA award deter litigation if given to individuals here? | Deterrence of challenging government action supports fees. | No deterrence because drivers were not paying costs anyway. | No deterrence achieved; award denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Thouvenot, Wade & Moerschen, Inc., 596 F.3d 378 (7th Cir.2010) (insurance/payment arrangements influence fee eligibility)
- Unification Church v. INS, 762 F.2d 1077 (D.C.Cir.1985) (stand-in litigant and payment arrangements affect eligibility)
- SEC v. Comserv Corp., 908 F.2d 1407 (8th Cir.1990) (fee awards depend on deterrence and payer structure)
- AARP v. EEOC, 873 F.2d 402 (D.C.Cir.1989) (factors beyond standing determine fee eligibility)
- Ed A. Wilson, Inc. v. General Services Admin., 126 F.3d 1406 (Fed.Cir.1997) (fees may be awarded where insurer bears defense costs)
- United States v. Paisley, 957 F.2d 1161 (4th Cir.1992) (indemnification arrangements affect EAJA eligibility)
- Krecioch v. United States, 316 F.3d 684 (7th Cir.2003) (EAJA deterrence and burden on claimant emphasized)
- Sullivan v. Hudson, 490 U.S. 877 (1989) (purpose of EAJA to remove financial disincentive)