Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Administrative Law

Fees and Expenses Awarded to Prevailing Party
Pursuant to Equal Access to Justice Act

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In B&D Land and Livestock Co. v. Schafer, 615 F. Supp. 2d 950, 2009 WL 1425477 (N.D. Iowa 2009), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa held that a plaintiff who successfully challenged a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) determination that he was in violation of the Swampbuster Act for conversion of wetlands was entitled to compensation for reasonable fees and expenses.

Background

After successfully challenging a USDA decision finding him in violation of the Swampbuster Act for conversion of wetlands, the plaintiff sought attorney fees and expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Id. at *1.

Arguments

The government argued that its position was "substantially justified" and that "special circumstances" made an award of fees unjust, and also disputed the amount of warranted hours and the billing rate requested by the plaintiff. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

The court explained that the EAJA "directs courts to award fees and other expenses to prevailing parties unless the United States' position was 'substantially justified' or 'special circumstances' would make an award unjust." Id. at *2. Upon review, the court held that the government had failed to prove that its position was "substantially justified," finding that there was "absolutely no reasonable basis in law or fact" for several of the government's actions, including disregarding certain evidence and "improperly placing the burden of proof on [the plaintiff] to demonstrate why wetlands were not present based on criteria not identified in the statute or regulations as determinative of a wetland." Id. The court likewise found no "special circumstances" that would bar recovery of fees. Id. at *3. The relevant statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A)(ii), provided only for attorney fees of up to $125 per hour "unless the court determines that an increase in the cost of living or a special factor, such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings involved, justifies a higher fee." Id. at *3. Although the plaintiff sought compensation for attorney fees at rates of $175 and $185 per hour, the court found that such fees were "justified by both an increase in the cost of living and special factors," adding that the plaintiff's counsel had "the required specialization and distinctive knowledge warranting an enhanced hourly rate," and therefore granted the plaintiff's motion for fees and expenses. Id. at *4-5.

The case was decided on May 21, 2009.