Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona grants in part and denies in part Lula Ben Bitah’s motion for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The court awards $38,608.21, consisting of reasonable attorney fees and $12.20 in costs, while denying $989.85 in costs as untimely.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff was a prevailing party eligible to seek attorney fees under the EAJA.
- Whether ONHIR's position was substantially justified.
- Whether Plaintiff satisfied the EAJA net-worth requirement and whether the requested attorney fees were reasonable.
- Whether the requested costs were timely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54.
Holdings
- Plaintiff was a prevailing party because the court granted her requested relief by reversing and remanding the IHO's decision for further proceedings.
- ONHIR's position was not substantially justified because it did not argue or demonstrate substantial justification.
- Plaintiff satisfied the EAJA net-worth requirement, and the requested hourly rates, hours, and attorney-fee amount were reasonable.
- The disputed costs were untimely and were not recoverable, but the undisputed $12.20 Postmaster cost was recoverable.
Key quotations
“This provision “creates a presumption that fees will be awarded to prevailing parties.”” (at 2)
““Substantial justification means ‘justified in substance or in the main – that is, justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person.’ ”” (at 2)
Factual background
Plaintiff, an enrolled member of the Navajo Nation, applied for relocation benefits in 2009 based on her family's residence in an area partitioned for use by the Hopi Tribe. ONHIR denied the application because she was not a head of household in June 1975 or April 1976. After two administrative denials and two district-court reversals and remands, Plaintiff sought attorney fees and costs under the EAJA.
Procedural history
The Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation denied Plaintiff's application for relocation benefits, and an Independent Hearing Officer later found her ineligible. The district court reversed and remanded that decision in 2022. After a second agency hearing and another denial, the district court again reversed and remanded the IHO's decision; Defendant appealed but dismissed the appeal. Plaintiff then sought EAJA fees and costs, which the court granted in part and denied in part.