127 Fed. Cl. 412
Fed. Cl.2013Background
- Plaintiffs filed EAJA fee application on October 10, 2012; defendant moved to dismiss as untimely.
- Settlement Agreement approved December 22, 2011; court retained jurisdiction to implement and dismiss claims per the agreement.
- Settlement contemplates adjusting military records to reflect 60% PTSD disability and eventual dismissal of claims for those corrected.
- At filing, no list of modified records had been submitted and no claims had been dismissed under the Settlement.
- Court must decide whether approval of the Settlement constitutes a final EAJA judgment triggering a 30-day filing deadline.
- Court ultimately holds no final judgment occurred; timetable for EAJA remains unsettled at that point.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether approval of the Settlement constitutes a final EAJA judgment. | Plaintiffs contend no final judgment exists until dismissal occurs. | Defendant argues approval of settlement is a final judgment and starts EAJA clock. | Approval of settlement was not a final EAJA judgment. |
| Whether dismissal is required for finality under EAJA in a settlement with ongoing jurisdiction. | Final judgment occurs only when claims are dismissed under the settlement. | Settlement approval alone may trigger finality allowing EAJA filing. | Final judgment not reached until dismissal under settlement; ongoing jurisdiction prevents finality. |
| Whether the EAJA filing deadline applies given the court's ongoing duty to implement the settlement. | Deadline should run from finality, which has not occurred. | Deadline runs upon approval of settlement. | Deadline not triggered because no final judgment entered. |
| Whether the court should consider timeliness despite later events. | TIMELINESS determined by 30-day rule; later events irrelevant if not final. | Court can consider timing in light of ongoing settlement implementation. | Timeliness determined by lack of final judgment; proceeding allowed to address merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 531 F.3d 1367 (Fed.Cir. 2008) (timing provisions interpreted broadly to avoid traps)
- Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1945) (final judgment concept relates to issues remaining to be decided)
- Silicon Image, Inc. v. Genesis Microchip Inc., 395 F.3d 1358 (Fed.Cir. 2005) (settlement approvals do not automatically create EAJA final judgments)
- Bryan v. Office of Personnel Management, 165 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 1999) (voluntary dismissal timing different from settlement approval)
- Dunn v. United States, 775 F.2d 99 (3d Cir. 1985) (consent judgment timing and finality for EAJA)
- Hutchinson ex rel. Julien v. Patrick, 636 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (remand/settlement context and EAJA finality considerations)
- Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (U.S. 1993) (remand and finality concepts in administrative contexts)
- Reich v. Walter W. King Plumbing & Heating Contractor, Inc., 98 F.3d 147 (4th Cir. 1996) (timing of EAJA clock in partially settled actions)
- Social Security v. Shalala (context cited for remand/finality reasoning), not provided in text (not specified) (discussed in context of remand and finality)
- Rivera Sanchez v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 786 F.Supp. 147 (D.P.R. 1992) (EAJA final judgment concepts in context)
- Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1991) (final judgment concept in EAJA context)