United States v. Marshall Pecore
664 F.3d 1125
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- After a lengthy investigation and a nine-day trial, Pecore and Waniger prevailed against FCA claims brought by the United States on behalf of Menominee Tribal Enterprises.
- The defendants moved for EAJA attorney’s fees or, alternatively, Rule 37(c)(2) sanctions; the district court denied both requests.
- The Menominee program involved Hazardous Fuels Reduction funds managed by the BIA, with reimbursement based on actual costs rather than per-mile fixed fees.
- Evidence at trial showed disputes over whether MTE’s invoices, maps, and completion attestations accurately reflected work performed and standards met.
- The government’s investigation included OIG review and contemporaneous inspections; settlement discussions occurred but a suit was filed in 2007.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of both EAJA fees and Rule 37 sanctions, finding no abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the EAJA fee denial an abuse of discretion? | Pecore and Waniger: government position not substantially justified. | Government failed to meet substantial justification standards. | No abuse; government position substantially justified. |
| Was Rule 37 sanctions denial an abuse of discretion? | Sanctions were appropriate due to failure to admit; substantial justification exists. | Sanctions warranted for failing to admit; no substantial justification. | No abuse; district court did not err in denying sanctions. |
| Did the government's position have substantial factual and legal justification? | Position lacked reasonable basis in law or facts. | Position had reasonable basis in law and in fact; trial disputes are not decisive. | Position had substantial justification; affirm denial of fees sanctions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Conrad v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 987 (7th Cir. 2006) (standard for substantial justification under EAJA)
- Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (1988) (reasonable basis standard for substantial justification)
- United States v. Thouvenot, Wade & Moerschen, Inc., 596 F.3d 378 (7th Cir. 2010) (objective factors for substantial justification; evidence surviving litigation matters)