Roberts v. National Transportation Safety Board
776 F.3d 918
D.C. Cir.2015Background
- James L. Roberts, an airplane mechanic and Darby Aviation’s Director of Maintenance, faced a 120-day FAA license suspension in 2009; the NTSB ultimately vacated the suspension and found the FAA not substantially justified.
- Roberts sought EAJA fees ($66,693.27) for attorney fees and expenses incurred defending the administrative enforcement action.
- An NTSB ALJ found the FAA’s position not substantially justified but denied EAJA fees, concluding Roberts had not “incurred” the fees because invoices were addressed to his employer and no express personal obligation was shown.
- The Board rejected the ALJ’s finding that Darby agreed to pay, but affirmed denial on the ground the record lacked clear evidence Roberts personally “incurred” the fees.
- Roberts argued he was personally obligated under Alabama law (quantum meruit) to pay his attorneys; he submitted attorney and Darby affidavits indicating partial employer payment and that counsel did not work pro bono.
- The D.C. Circuit vacated the NTSB order as arbitrary and capricious for failing to consider Alabama quantum meruit law that could show Roberts incurred the fees, and remanded for the Board to determine the appropriate award and any reductions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner “incurred” fees under EAJA | Roberts: Alabama law (quantum meruit) creates a legal obligation to pay attorneys, so he incurred fees | FAA/NTSB: Lack of an express personal obligation (invoices to employer) means Roberts did not incur fees | Court: NTSB acted arbitrarily by not applying state quantum meruit law; Roberts can be found to have incurred fees |
| Proper definition/scope of “incur” in EAJA | “Incur” includes liabilities created by operation of law, not only by contract | FAA: apply dictionary meaning to require personal responsibility to pay; mere possibility of state liability insufficient | Court: EAJA’s “incur” can encompass liabilities under state law; NTSB must consider that authority |
| Whether evidence of employer payment or billing formatting defeats EAJA recovery | Roberts: affidavits show employer paid only part, counsel not pro bono, and Roberts agreed to pay any fee award | FAA/NTSB: invoices addressed to employer and lack of explicit client obligation undermine claim he incurred fees | Court: Board erred in treating lack of express contract or invoice addressee as dispositive; should assess state-law obligation and other evidence |
| Scope/amount of recoverable fees | Roberts: seeks full claimed amount subject to EAJA limits | FAA: challenges documentation, pre-appearance billing, unrelated entries | Court: Left amount and any reductions (inadequate documentation, pre-appearance work, unrelated entries) to NTSB on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Green Aviation Mgmt. Co. v. FAA, 676 F.3d 200 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (de novo review of EAJA statutory interpretation)
- Turner v. NTSB, 608 F.3d 12 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (EAJA is a statute of general application; no agency deference)
- Singleton v. Babbitt, 588 F.3d 1078 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (factual findings reviewable for substantial evidence)
- Ed A. Wilson, Inc. v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 126 F.3d 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (noting EAJA lacks statutory definition of “incur”)
- SEC v. Comserv Corp., 908 F.2d 1407 (8th Cir. 1990) (discussion of “incur” in fee contexts)
- Vance v. Heckler, 757 F.2d 1324 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (agency must not refuse to credit reasonable process-of-elimination inferences)
- Role Models America, Inc. v. Brownlee, 353 F.3d 962 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (EAJA reductions for inadequate documentation)
- Allen v. NTSB, 160 F.3d 431 (8th Cir. 1998) (reduced award appropriate where documentation insufficient)