A preliminary writ was granted by the circuit court upon motion of appellant, Lewis E. Melahn, Director of the Missouri Department of Insurance (“Director”) against the respondent, Paul A. Otto, Cоmmissioner of the Administrative Hearing Commission (“AHC”). The preliminary writ prohibited the AHC from hearing a claim for attorney fees. This is an appeal from the circuit court’s order quashing the preliminary writ of prohibition which allowed the AHC to rule on a claim for attorney fees.
The Director filed a complaint with the AHC alleging that John R. Hutchings refused to allow the Director access tо Mr. Hutchings’ insurance company records after being served with a subpoena duces tecum. Mr. Hutchings filed an answer to the complaint and a motion to dismiss. At the same time, Mr. Hutchings served requеsts for admissions, production of documents and interrogatories. The Director did not respond to these discovery requests. Mr. Hutchings then filed a motion to compel plus additional discоvery requests. Subsequently, Mr. Hutchings filed another motion to compel discovery along with a request for sanctions because of the Director’s failure to respond. In the meantime, the Dirеctor filed a motion to dismiss its complaint against Mr. Hutchings and *527 requested that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice. The court granted the motion and dismissed the Director’s complaint without prejudice.
Based on the dismissal, Mr. Hutchings filed an application for attorney fees pursuant to §§ 536.085 and 536.087 RSMo. 1 In response, the Director requested the Circuit Court of Cole County to issue а writ of prohibition against the AHC to prevent the hearing for attorney’s fees from proceeding, contending the AHC did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. The court issued a preliminary writ of prohibition and AHC filed an answer and a Motion to Quash Preliminary Writ and to Dismiss Petition. Eventually, the court sustained the motion to quash which had the effect of allowing the AHC to hear Mr. Hutchings claim fоr attorney fees. The Director appeals the circuit court’s order allowing the AHC to proceed with the hearing.
On appeal, the Director contends the AHC lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter because a dismissal without prejudice does not fall within the meaning of “prevails” as set forth in § 536.087.1. The Director continues its argument that if a dismissal without prejudice fаlls within the definition of “prevails,” Mr. Hutchings did nothing to “obtain” a favorable result as required by § 536.085(3). It is the AHC’s position that a dismissal without prejudice is a “favorable” result and that the term “obtain” requires only a minimаl effort, if any, by the benefitted party.
The jurisdiction of the AHC to rule on applications for attorney’s fees is granted by § 536.087.1, which states in part that “[a] party who prevails in an agency proceеding or civil action arising therefrom, brought by or against the state, shall be awarded those reasonable fees and expenses incurred by that party_” (Emphasis added). “Prevail” is defined in § 536.085(3) as “obtains a favorable order, decision, judgment or dismissal in а civil action or agency proceeding.” (Emphasis added). Therefore, whether Mr. Hutchings was a “prevailing party” in the underlying administrative hearing depends on whether he obtained a favorable decision and, if so, did he “obtain” the dismissal even though the Director filed a motion to dismiss its claim. See § 536.087.1.
When construing a statute, it is the court’s purpose to ascertain the intent of the legislature from the language used and, if possible, to give effect to that intent.
Abrams v. Ohio Pacific Express.,
As we have indicated, in order for the AHC to have jurisdiction, Mr. Hutchings must have been a prevailing party within the meaning of § 536.087.1. To bе a prevailing party the dismissal must be “favorable.” § 536.085(3). Because there are no Missouri cases interpreting § 536.085(3), guidance can be found in the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”).
See
Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2412 (1982). The Missouri law is рatterned after the EAJA and both statutes require state agencies to carefully scrutinize agency and court proceedings.
State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts v. Warren,
Although the EAJA does not define the term “prevailing party,” the United States Supreme Court has interpreted its meaning under similar fee shifting statutes as follows:
[Pjlaintiffs may be considered ‘prevailing parties’ for attorney’s fees purposes if they succеed on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the *528 benefit the parties sought in bringing suit.
Hensley v. Eckerhart,
The legislative history of the EAJA tells us the term “prevailing party” should not be limited “to a victor only after entry of a final judgment follоwing a full trial on the merits.” H.R.Rep. No. 1418, 96th Cong., 2nd Sess. 11 (1980),
reprinted in
1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4953, 4984, 4990. A party will be deemed prevailing if he obtains a settlement of his case; if the plaintiff has sought a voluntary dismissal of a groundless complaint; or evеn if he does not ultimately prevail on all issues. Id. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals adopted this standard of a prevailing party in
United States for Heydt v. Citizens State Bank,
When defending a claim brought by the government, the 8th Circuit Court of Apрeals further defined the EAJA standard of a “prevailing party” as not stringent, but the definition did require a plaintiff to receive
some relief
on the merits of his claim to be a prevailing party.
S.E.C. v. Comserv Corp.,
Such an interpretation of “prevailing party” has found support in other courts which have held that:
Whеn the case ends before a final judgment is reached, a party may be deemed a prevailing party if it establishes ‘some sort of clear, causal relationship between the litigation brought and the practical outcome realized.’
Oregon Environmental Council v. Kunzman,
We also find “prevail” defined in our malicious prosecutiоn actions. In those cases our courts have found that one party may “prevail” based on a dismissal without prejudice.
See Shinn v. Bank of Crocker,
Mr. Hutchings benefitted by the Director’s dismissal even though it was without prejudiсe because he no longer had to defend against this particular action. It was a favorable conclusion for the defendant. On the other hand, no presumption should be raisеd that the state’s position was not substantially justified simply because it lost the case.
United States for Heydt,
For Mr. Hutchings to establish himself as the prevailing party does not necessаrily guarantee an award of expenses and fees. An applicant for expenses and fees must allege and prove that his financial net worth did not, at the time the action wаs initiated, exceed the dollar figure nor did the business exceed the number of employees set forth in § 536.085(2)(a) and (b). *529 The moving party must also allege the amount sought, and that the state’s actiоn was not substantially justified. § 536.-087.3. The burden then falls upon the agency to prove its claim or defense was substantially justified or constituted a special circumstance. The AHC provides a forum where both parties can offer evidence to explain their positions. See § 536.087. At the hearing, the Director will have the opportunity to establish that filing the complaint was “substantially justified or thаt special circumstances make an award unjust,” and if so found, the state may avoid any payment of attorney’s fees. See § 536.087.1.
The final issue is whether Mr. Hutchings “obtained” a favorable result within the mеaning of § 536.085(3). “Obtain,” in its simplest form, means “to get possession of ... to arrive at; to reach; to achieve....” Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged 1236 (Encyclopedia Ed.1977). The fact Mr. Hutchings responded to the petition, filed a motion to dismiss, served the Director with discovery requests, filed motions to compel discovery with a request for sanctions, and received a fаvorable ruling, amply satisfies the requirements of the term “obtains” in the statute. The Director’s argument that the dismissal was voluntary and not in response to any action on the part of Mr. Hutchings is not persuasive. The point is denied.
The order of the circuit court, quashing the preliminary writ of prohibition is affirmed.
All concur.
Notes
. All statutory references are to the Revised Statutes of Missouri Cumulative Supplement 1989, unless otherwise indicated.
. This termination in favor of the defendant is limited to situations where the party who initiated the suit manifests an intent to abandon it.