The H onorab le J oan B
. G ott sc hall, ofthe Un it ed Stat es  Di s t r i c tCo ur tf or the Nor t he r n Di s t r i c to fI l l i no i s , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on. 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 2340 O WNER -O PE RATO R I NDEPENDENT D RIVERS A S S OC I A T I ON, I NC ., etal. , P etitio ners , v.
F EDERAL M O TO R C ARRIER S AF ETY A DM I NI S T RA T I ON, R es pond ent
.
Pe tition fo r Review o f anOrd er of the Fed eralMot o r C arrie r S afe ty A dm inis tration.

No . FM CSA -2004- 18940
S UB MI TT ED F EB RU AR Y 13, 2012

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 2, 2012

Befo re R O V NE R a nd W OO D , C i rcui t Judges , a nd G OTTS CHALL , D istrict Judge.  W OO D , C ircu it Judge. I n o uro pi ni o n o n the me r i ts i n thi s ca se, we vacat ed a fi nal r ule i ssued by the Feder al2 N o. 10

- 2340 M o to r Ca r r i erS afety Adm i ni st r at i o n ( F M CS A) ab o ut the use o fel ectr oni c m oni tor i ng devi ces i n com m er ci al tr u c ks

. O wne r - O pe r at orIndepe nde ntD r i ve rs As s ’ n v . Federal M otor Carri erSafe ty Adm in
. , 656 F.3 d 5 8 0 (7th Cir. 2011 )
. Three ofthe peti ti oner s, W i l l i am J
. Cull i gan, A dam D. Bu r ne t t, a nd Do ug l a s Ol dh a m, e a c h o f who m i s a co m m er ci alt r uckdr i ve r, no w se eka tt o r ne y s’ fee s an d costs un d er th e Eq ua l A cce ss to Justice A ct (EA JA ). FM C SA op p os es th e a w ar d . I t a rg u es th at t h e s e ind ivi dualdr i ve r s ar e n ot en ti tl ed to fee s be ca us e th e fourth pet iti one r, Ow ne r-Op erator I nd ep en d en t D rivers A sso ci ati on ( OO I DA ) , wh i ch i s no t i ncl ud ed i n the f ee pet i ti o n, i s the o nl y pa r tyr es po ns ibl e f o r pa y i ngthe att or neys’ fees i ncurr ed i n the prosecuti on o fthe peti ti on f or r e v i e w. Aft e r e xa mi ni ngthe r e l e v a nta r r a ng e men t s, w e agree w ith FM C SA that the ind ivi d ua l p etitioners ar e no t e nti tl ed to the re quested fees . The EAJ A pro vi des tha t a cou rtmusta war d fee s an d cos ts i ncurr ed by the pr evai l i ng par ty unle ss the po sit ion ofthe U ni ted S tat es w as substanti al l y j usti fi ed orthat s pe c i a l c i r c um sta nc e s ma k e the a wa r d u nj us t
. 2 8 U. S
. C. § 2412 (d)(1)( A ). Th ere is no q ue s t ion that the p etitioners preva iled wh en we vacat ed the rul e that they c hal l enged i n thei r peti ti on f orr ev iew. The EA J A defi nes a party as “an i nd i vi du alwh ose n et w orth di d not e xceed $2, 000, 000 at th e tim e the ci vi l act i on was fi l ed” or, as re l evanther e, an “ or gani zat ion , the networth o fwh i ch did n o te xc e e d $ 7, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 a tthe t i me the c i v i l a c t i on w as fi l ed. ” 2 8 U.S
. C. § 2 412( d)(2)(B ). The i nd i vi du al peti ti oner s r epres ent that they a l l m eet t h e net worth re qu i r e men t s , a nd we ha v e no r e a s o n t o qu e s t i o n thatN o. 10

- 2340 3 sta tem ent. W e i nfe r, however, thatOOIDA does not m eet th e qu ali fi cation s of a “p arty” for pu rp o s e s o f a fee aw ar d u n d e r th e E A JA , bec au se it h as n ot j oin ed in th e f ee pe ti ti o n. W e re c en tly n ot ed t h e p ro b lem of th e “ st an d -in litigant”

— that i s, so m eone wh o l i ti gat es i n the p lac e o f a par ty that i s i nel i gibl e f oran a w ar d offees under th e EA J A ei th erb ec au se o fs i ze o r wea l th , w he r e th e i ne l i g ibl e par typa y s th e att o r ne y s’ fee s f o r the s ta nd- i n. U nite d State s v. Thouv enot, Wade & M o ersc hen, Inc. , 59 6 F. 3d 37 8, 3 83 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0) , c i ting S EC v . Co ms e r v Corp. , 908 F. 2d 1407, 14 16 ( 8th Ci r. 19 90)
. I n or der t o add re ss that con cer n, we m ust e xam i ne the detai l s o fthe re l ati onshi p between the peti ti oners a nd thei r counsel

. Each ofthe i nd i vi du alpeti ti oner s i n ourcas e e ntered i nto a se p ar at e fe e a rra n ge m en t w ith th e s am e la w firm . In th o s e a g r e e men t s , the fi r m co mm i t t e d n o tt o c ha rg e f e e s a nd c o s t s t o the i nd i v i du a l dr i v e r . OO I DA h a d a separ ate ag re em en t w i th the sa m e l aw fi rm ; i ts agr eem ent bi nd s i t to pay al l of the f ees and co st s a sso ci ate d w i th thi s ca se. FM CSA ar gues that the ne t e ff ect ofthese ar ra ngem ents preve nts the i nd ivi du alpeti ti oner s fro m m e et in g t h eir bu rd en to es ta b lish th at th ey are so lely re sponsibl e f orthe f ees . The c ourt, i t s ays , m ust l oo k b ey on d th e n am es on th e fe e p e t i tio n an d as c er ta in w ho i s the r ealparty i n i nter estwith res p ec t to fees . S ee Un i f i c a t i o n C h u r c h v . INS , 762 F.2 d 1 0 7 7, 1081 (D
. C
. Cir. 19 85 )
. The p eti ti o ne r s ac k no wl edg e th atthe y b ea r the b u r d e n o fp r o v i n ge l i g ib i l i ty f o r fe e s u n d e r th e E AJ A, Sos e b e ev. As t r ue, 4 94 F.3 d 5 83 , 5 87( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) , b ut they re plythatthe EA J A r equi re s o nl y that they e stab-4 N o. 10

- 2340 l i shtha t th eya r e “pr ev ai l i ngpa r ti es ” as de fi ne d i n the Act
. S ee N a il v. M a rtinez , 391 F.3d 678 , 682-83 (5th C ir. 2004 ) ( rej ecting the “r ealparty i n i nter est ” t estbas ed on i ts concl usi on that Congr ess specific al l y defi ned “party ” and ther e is n o j usti fi cati on f orfurtherdefi ni ng an eli gible p arty). FM C SA p oin ts ou t t h at th e D .C . C irc u it’s d ec isio n in U nifi cation Church di d n o t take su c h a s i mpl i s t i c a pp ro ac h . Th e p lain tiffs th er e a re sim ilar to th e p et iti o ne r s be f o r e us

— an org an i za ti o n a nd thr ee i ndi vi dual s. The pa r ti es i n U nifi cation Church had agr eed that th e o r g an i za ti o n wo ul d pa y the fee s. Thi s fact led th e cour t t o concl u d e that the i nd i vi du alpl ai nti ff s had nothi ng atst ake i n the aw ar d of fe es , f orthe str ai ghtfor w ar d rea son that the inel i gibl e o rg ani zati on was so lely res p on sib le for p ay in g t h em . U nifi ca ti on C hurch , 76 2 F
. 2d at1 08 2- 83
. The p etit i o ne r s r es po nd tha t th e D.C. Ci rcui t l ate r re m ar ked thatthe ess enti alco nsi derati o n i n U nifi cation Church w as t h e e x istenc e of a fee arr an ge m en t a m on g t h e p lain tiffs

. A A R P v . E E OC, 87 3 F. 2d 402 ( D.C. Cir. 19 89)
. The AARP co urt l oo ked to whethe r the r e was s o m e r el at i o ns hi p o r a g r ee m en t am ong som e o r all of the pl ai nti ff s, ei therexpl i ci t o r im p li cit, perm itti ng a plaintiffw ho w ou ld n ot qu ali fy for an awar d t o r ec ei ve fr ee l eg als er vi ce s i fi ts s i de were to p re va il. Id. at 405 . I n the p resen t case, pet iti one rs concl ud e, the thre e t ruck dri ver s e ach had a separ ate an d i nde pen den t at to r ne y / cl i en t r el at i o ns hi p wi thc o unseland eac h si gned a separ ate r et en ti on a gr eem ent. Because ther e w as no um bre l l a f ee ar ra ngem ent “ am ong” a l l o f the pe t i t i o ne r s , the r e i s no thi ng t o pr e v e ntea ch peti ti onerfro m r ecei vi ng fees .N o. 10

- 2340 5 I n ourvi ew , thi s l i ne o far gum ent s haves th i ngs to o fi ne l y . The absence o fa n a g r ee m en t amongthe parti es m ay be on e p i ece ofev i dence, but i t doe s no t en d th e inq u iry by its elf. AARP hel d that a var i ety of fac to rs ar e pe rt in en t. It ex p lain ed th at a cou rt“ s h ou ld co ns i derwhethe r the r e i s o ne c o uns elr epr es en ting se ve ra l p lain tiff s o fd isp ar at e s ize or w ea lth , esp ec ially w here the si ze orweal th o fo ne o r m or e oftho se pl aint i ff s woul d l i k el y di squa l i fy i t f r o m r ec o ve ri ng f e e s u nd e r the EAJ A, ” h o w l o nga nd wh e n counsel has be en and beca m e co u n se l o fr eco rd f orea ch pla i nti ff, the appearance s a nd r epres entati ons m ade by the v ar i ous a tto rney s o n behal fo fthei r re sp ec ti ve c l i e nt s , a nd whe the r s o me pl a i nt i f f s r e t a i ne d pr o b ono counsel

. Each ofthes e co nsi derati ons w oul d thro w li gh t on th e ultim ate q ue stion w he th er “a plaintiff pu rs ued counseli nd ependent ofthe sti m ulu s ofa l ar ge orweal thy pl ai nti ff

. ” AARP , 87 3 F
. 2d at 405- 06. A pp l yi ng tha t a p p ro ac h to o ur ca se, we see fi rs t that the ind i vi du alpeti ti oner s a re o bvi ously o fdi spara te si ze an d w ealth as com pared to OOIDA
. The abs ence of th e o rg an iza tio n from th e fe e p et i t i o n is ex p lain ab le on ly by th e naturalas sum pti on that i t i s no t e l i gibl e f or fee s u n d er th e s ta tu te . O O ID A a n d th e in d ivid u al p et iti o ne r s wer e r epr es en te d b y the s ame l aw fi r m thr o ug ho utthi s l i ti g at i on. C o uns elo fr ec o r d, a tt o r ne y Pa ul Cul l en, l i st s o n the pe ti ti o ne r s’ fee pe ti ti o n tha t he has s er ved a s G en eralCounselto OOIDA and has re presente d t he as soc i ati on a nd i ts m em ber s f oro ver 20 ye ar s. There i s no i nd i cati on that a tto rneyCull en had an att or ney/ cl i ent r el ati onshi p w i th the i nd i vid ual6 N o. 10

- 2340 peti ti oner s be f or e the c u rrent l i ti gat i on. FM CSA al so p oi nts o ut thatthe att or ney t i m e r eco rds s ubm i tte d w ith th e p et itio n ca ta log u e n u m er ou s in st an c es in w hich cou ns el conferred w ith O O I D A , bu t the re are no e nt r i e s r e po r t i ng c o mm un i c a t i o ns wi th the thr ee i nd i vi du al s. These f acto rs al l support the c oncl usi on that the r el ati onshi p between the peti ti oner s i s s uch th at th e in d iv idu al petitioners are no t eli gible for a f ee aw ar d. E ve n if the pet i ti oner s di d not hav e a n expli ci t fee ar ra ngem ent a m ong them sel ves , thei r f ee arran gem en ts w ith th e sam e law firm

— a firm t h at had rep resen ted OO I D A f or over 20 years

— re sul ted i n an i m pli ci t a rr angem ent wherebythe in elig ibl e o rg ani zati o n pa i d the ful l a m ou nto fthe fee s an d c o st s an d the ind i vi du aldri ver s were not re sponsibl e f orany paym ent. Ou r c onclusi on her e s houl d not be understo od as a hold ing tha t the answ e r t o t h e qu estion w he th er a partyi s di re ctl y liabl e f orthe paym ent o fat torneys’ fees i s a l w ays di sposit ive w i th r espectto el i gibi l i ty f oran EA JA award. Fo r exam ple , we re centl y e xplai ned that a n a wa r d o fa t t o r ne y s ’ fe e s u nd er the EAJ A c a n i nc l ud e f ee s incurr ed by the par ty’ s l i abi l i ty i nsurer, bec ause th e par tyha d c o nt r ac te d wi ththe i ns ur an ce c o m pan y t o p a y p r e mi u ms i n e x c h a n g e f o r th e i n s u r a n c e c o mp an y’s b e a r i n g t h e d efe n se co st s. Thouve not, 59 6 F
. 3d at 38 3. A cco rd E d A . Wilso n, Inc. v. G ener a l Serv ices A dm in., 126 F. 3d 1406 ( Fed. Ci r. 19 97)
. S i m i l ar l y, co urts have aw ar ded fees wh er e t h e p re vai l i ng par ty i s r epres ented by a leg als er vi ce s o r g an i za ti o n o r c o uns ela ppea r i ng pr o b ono . AARP , 873 F.2d at40 6; Wa tfo rd v . H e c k ler, 76 5N o. 10

- 2340 7 F.2d 156 2, 1567 n.6 (1 1 t h C ir. 1985); C o rnella v. Sch w eik er, 728 F. 2d 978, 98 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 84)
. I n contr ast, co urts have d e n i e d fe e s u n d e r th e E AJ A i n s i t u a t i o n s w h e r e a n e mplo yerpai d the at torneys’ fees o n b ehal fo fi ts em plo yee s . T he F o ur th Ci r c ui th e l d tha tfi v e f o r mere mpl o yee s wer e no t el i g ibl e f o r a n a war d o fEAJ A f ee s wh en the com pany w as l ega l l y o bl i gat ed to i nd em ni fy them f or th eir at to rn ey s’ fe es . U nited Sta tes v . P a isley, 95 7 F
. 2d 11 61 (4t h C ir. 19 92 ). To sim ilar effe c t, t h e E igh th C irc u it hel d that a co rpor ate o ffi cerwas not el i gibl e f oran E AJ A a wa r d w h e n t h e c o mp a n y ’ s i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y r e i mburse d the co m pany f ori ts i nd em ni fi c at ion o fi ts offic er s a n d d ire c to rs . C o m serv , 90 8 F
. 2d at 1414

- 15. To de te r m i ne whena fee a war d i s appr o pr i at e, the c o u rtm u st be ar in m in d th e p u rp os e o f th e E A JA . In re conci l i ng o ne dec ision awarding f ees with a deci si on den y i ng e l i g i bi l i ty f o r fee s wher e no ne o ft he pr ev ai l i ngpa r ti es ha d pai d o ut
- o f

- po ck ete xpe ns es , the Eighth Ci rcui t co ncl ud ed that “[ t] he l ess on we draw f ro m thes e t w o case s i s that EA J A awards sho uld be avai l abl e where the b urden ofat torneys’ f ees would have d eterred the li tigation ch all en g ing the govern m en t’s ac tio n s, b u t n ot w h er e n o su c h d et er re n c e e x ist s.” C o m s e rv , 90 8 F
. 2d at 1415

- 16. W e a gr ee w i th thatprac ti cal approa ch. The cr i ti calco ncer n und er l yi ng the co m m on preco nd i ti on that the fee cl ai m ant m ust hav e i ncurr ed the e xpense i s the nee d to ass ure that the e m plo yee w ou ld n ot h av e be en d et er re d fro m p u rs u in g th e s u it h ad th e E A JA n ot e x i st ed

. P a isley, 9 5 7F
. 2 d a t1 1 6 4
. As w e put i t be f or e, “[ t] he purpos e o fthe EA J A i s t o elim in at e t h e fin an c ial d isin c en tiv e fo r p eo p l e t o c h al-8 N o. 10

- 2340 l enge unreas onabl e g ove rnm entalact i ons. ” Kre ci oc h v
. U n i t e d S ta tes , 3 16 F
. 3d 68 4, 6 86 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 3) , c i ting Sul l i van v. H uds on , 4 90 U. S
. 8 77, 88 3- 84 ( 19 89 )
. The i nt en t ofthe EA J A i s t o ass i st i nd i vi du al s o r sm al l e n ti ti es, not to su bsid ize l arge en titi es th at are bett er able to af ford leg al s er vic es . U n if

ication C hurch , 7 62 F
. 2d at1 08 1. To ho l d o th er wi se woul d r ai se “[t] he po ss ibi l i tyo fo ne c lien t u sin g a n ot h er to ob ta in fee s o th er w ise u n av aila b le und erthe A ct. ” Id

. at10 83. I n thi s ca se , we co nc l ude tha t the pur po se o fthe E A JA w ou ld n ot be se rv ed b y a w a r d in g fe es to th e in d ivi du alpeti ti oner s. Fi nanci alco nsi derat i ons w oul d not ha ve de te r r ed th e i ndi vi dualdr i ve r s f r o m pur su i ng thi s ac tio n, bec ause they ar e no t l i abl e f orpaym ent o f th e a tt or n ey s’ fe es ev en i fn o f e es are aw ar d ed by th is cour t. A ccor dingl y, we D EN Ythe peti ti oner s’ m oti on f orat torneys’ fees .

4- 2- 12