ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
 
Application Under the Equal Access )  
  to Justice Act of -- 
 
) 
) 
 
CKY, INC. ) ASBCA No. 60451-EAJA 
 )   
Under Contract No. W912P8-11-D-0007 )  
    
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Daniel J. Foster, Esq. 
Islam M. Ahmad, Esq. 
    Wilke Fleury LLP 
    Sacramento, CA 
 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq. 
    Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 
 William G. Meiners, Esq. 
Stephan C. Roth, Esq. 
J. Emmanuel I. Santa Teresa, Esq. 
    Engineer Trial Attorneys 
    U.S. Army Engineer District, New Orleans 
  
ORDER OF DISMISSAL 
 
CKY, Inc. (CKY or appellant) submitted an Application for Award of Attorney’s 
Fees and Other Fees & Expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 
5 U.S.C. § 504, as amended, having partially prevailed on the underlying appeal.  On 
February 15, 2023, the Board granted appellant’s application but reduced the requested 
recovery amount to that allowed by EAJA.  The government appealed the Board’s 
EAJA award to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal 
Circuit).  Appellant did not appear before the Federal Circuit.  On February 18, 2025, 
the Federal Circuit remanded the EAJA appeal back to the Board to continue 
proceedings in accordance with the Court’s December 26, 2024, judgment. 
 
On February 19, 2025, the Board directed the parties to submit a report to the 
Board within 30 days recommending further proceedings for the Board to follow to 
comply with the Court’s remand.  The government submitted its report on March 18, 
2025.  Appellant did not submit a report.  On April 7, 2025, the Board ordered 
appellant to submit the required report on further proceedings by April 21, 2025.  
Again, appellant failed to respond.  On May 6, 2025, the Board ordered appellant to 
show cause within 21 days from the date of the Order as to why the Board should not 
dismiss appellant’s EAJA application for failure to prosecute.  The Board informed 
CKY that if it failed to respond by May 27, 2025, the Board would conclude 
appellant’s failure to respond indicated an intention to withdraw its EAJA application 

2 
and dismiss the application with prejudice for failure to prosecute with no further 
notice to the parties.*  To date, appellant has failed to respond to that Order. 
 
Appellant has repeatedly failed to respond to the Board’s Orders concerning its 
EAJA application.  Accordingly, appellant’s EAJA application is dismissed with 
prejudice under Board Rule 17 for failure to prosecute. 
 
Dated:  June 20, 2025 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ARTHUR M. TAYLOR 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
 
 
 
OWEN C. WILSON 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
 
 
 
MICHAEL N. O’CONNELL 
Administrative Judge 
Vice Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
 
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the 
Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60451-EAJA,
 Appeal of 
CKY, INC., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter. 
 
Dated:  June 20, 2025 
 
 
* The Board intended to send the Show Cause Order to both appellant’s counsel of 
record and directly to appellant to ensure appellant’s receipt, but we were 
unable to send the Order directly to appellant since the Board has no address on 
record for appellant.  Since appellant’s counsel has not withdrawn its 
representation, we find notice to counsel sufficient. 
 
 
PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals