SERVE D DECEMBE R9 , 2010 . '^"

- ' • OP-JlAriON S 

### 9 P U : 5 0 U.S . DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON , D C APPLICATIO N O F EMPIR E AIRWAY S Fo r fee s an dexpense s unde r th e Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Ac t EAJA-EA-000 1 FA A DOCKE T NO . CP10EA000 8 FDM S NO . FAA-2010-078 7 DECISIO N O F CHIE F ADMINISTRATIV E LA W JUDG E Thi s proceedin g arise s froma n applicatio n ("Application" ) filedb y Empir e Airway s ("Empire" ) o n Augus t

6 , 2010 , seekin g attorney' s fee s an dexpense s imde r th e Equal Acces s t o Justic e Ac t

("EAJA") , 5 U.S.C . § 504 , an dth e relevan t implementin g regulations , 1 4 C.F.R . Part 14 . Th e proceedin g underlyin g th e Applicatio n wa s acivi l penalt y actio n brough t b y th e Regiona l Counse l for

th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration , Easter n Regio n ("FAA" ) bearing FA A Docke t

Numbe r CP1OEA000 2 an dDM S Numbe r FAA-2010-0191 . Fo r

th e reason s se t fort h below , w e gran t

Empire' s Applicatio n i n th e amoun t o f $2,390 .

### STATEMEN T O F PROCEEDIN G

Th e Underlyin g Proceedin g I n the underlying proceeding , th e FA A allegedtha

t Empir e maintaine dan

doperated^ aircraf t in violatio n of

variou s Federa

l Aviatio n Regulations. ' O n Marc h 24,2010 , Charle s Casolaro , Esq . ("Casolaro" ) filed a n Answe r on behal f of Empire , which assertedth e defens e tha t Empir e neithe r owne dnor operate dth e aircraf

t i n question. ^ Then , o

n June 1,2010 , Gregor

y Winton , Esq . ("Winton" ) filed aNotic e o f Appearanc e an

dSubstitutio n o f

Counse l o n behalf of Empire. ^ However, due to a n oversight , th e servic e lis t

wa s no t update dt o reflect the substitutio n o

f Winton fo r Casolar o a s Empire' s counsel.' * O n June 21,2010 , th e FA

A filed aMotion t o Withdra w Complain

t Withou t Prejudice. ^ I n it s motion , th e FA

A admittedtha

t i t ha dfiled it s Complain

t agains t th e wrong entity. ^ Therefore , Claiman

t sough t to volimtarily withdra

w it s Complain

t "without prejudice " in orde

r t o re-file it agains t th e correc t

entity. ^ O

n Jun e 23,2010 , th e administrativ e la w judg e issueda

n Orde r Dismissing Proceeding an

dCancellin g Hearing ("D»ismissa l Order") . I

n th e Dismissa

l Order , th e judg e dismissedth e FAA' s cas e agains t Empir e wit h prejudice * a s se

t fort h in th e applicable procedura

l rules. ' The FA

A the n Sen

t th e judg e asecondnotic e of it s decision t

o

' Complaint, Cas e No . CP10EA0002 , Docke t No . FAA-2010-019 1 (Febraar y 6,2010) . ^ Answer, Cas e No . CP10EA0002 , Docke t No . FAA-2010-019 1 ^Ntofc h 24,2010) . ' Notic e o f Appearanc e an

dSubstitution of

Counsel , Cas e 1^6

" X^tOfiA0002 , Docke

t No . FAA-2010-019 1 (June 1 , 2010) . * See , e.g. , Administrative La w Judge' s Orde

r Dismissing PilOcSbtidin

g an dCancelling Hearing , Cas e No . CP10EA0002 , Docke

t No . FAA-2010-0191 , a

t 3 (June 23,2010 ) [hereinafter, "Dismissa l Order" ] (indicatin

g tha t th e orde r wa s serve do n Casolaro , but

no t Winton) . * Con^)lainant' s Motio

n t o Withdra w Complain

t Withou t Prejudice , Cas e No . CP10EA0002 , Docke t No . FAA

2010-019 1 (Jun

e 21 , 2010) [hereinafter, "Complainant' s Motion t o Withdraw"] . * /<i. a t 1,1 3 (stating tha

t Empir e Fligh t Academy , no t

Empir e Airways , ha

dcommittedth

e allegedviolations) . ^A/ . a t 1-2,14 . * See Dismissa

l Order , supr anot

e 4 , a t 1 (distinguishing betwee

n prejtidic e i n th e FAA' s presen t cas e agains t Empir e Airway s an

dpossible prejudic e in the FAA' s futur e cas e agamst

Empir e Fligh t Academy) . ' 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.21 5 (2006 ) ("i f a n agency attorne

y withdraw s the conq)laint.. . the administrative la w judg e shall dismis s the proceeding s unde r thi s subpar

t wit h prejudice") .withdra w it s Complaint.' ° O n Jul y 1 , 2010 , th e judg e issue da n Orde r o n Notic e o f

Withdrawa l o f Complain t

("Orde r o n Notice") , notin g tha t

h e ha dalread y dismisse dth e cas e with prejudic e o n Jun e 23 , 2010 , an dtherefor e coul dno t ac t o n th e FAA' s secon dnotice. " However , becaus e th e servic e lis t

ha dnot bee n updated , Winto n wa s no t serve dwit h eithe r

o f thes e orders . Empir e allege s tha t

Winto n finally obtaine dcopie s o f th e order s o n Jul y 26,2010.^" * Th e EAJ A Applicatio n O n Augus t

6,2010 , Empir e filedit s Applicatio n seekin g a n awar do f

attorney' s fee s an d expense s unde r

EAJA.' ^ I n th e Application , Empir e allege dtha t i t ha dprevaile di n th e imderlyin g action,' ^ th e FA A wa s no t substantiall y justifie di n filing it s Complaint,' ^ Empir e ha d incurre d$4,98 0 i n lega l fee s an dexpenses,' ^ an dn o specia l circumstance s woul dmak e a n EAJ A awar dunjust.' ^ However , Empir e di dno t attac h ane t

wort h exhibi t

t o th e Application."^ " O n Septembe r

1,2010 , th e FA A serve dit s respons e ("Response" ) t o th e Application . I n it s Response , th e FA A argue dtha t th e Applicatio n shoul db e dismisse dbecaus e i t was not timely filed,"^' Empir e ha dfaile dt o attac h ane t wort h exhibit,^ ^ an dEmpir e ha dno t prevaile di n th e

' " Se e Orde r

o n Notic e o f

Withdrawa l o f

Complaint , Docke t

No . FAA-2010-0191 , a t

1 (Jul y 1 , 2010 ) [hereinafter , "Orde r o n Notice"] .

' ^ See , e.g. , Dismissa l Order , supr anot e 4 , at 3 (indicatin g tha t

Winto n wa s no t

serve dwith th e Order) . ' ^ Se e Agency' s Respons e t o Respondent' s Nun c Pr o Tim e Applicatio n for a n Awar do f

Attorne y Fee s an dOthe r Expense s Pursuan t

t o th e Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Act , Cas e No . CP10EA0008 , Docke t No . FAA-2010-0787 , a t

2 , H 7 (Septembe r

1,2010 ) [hereinafter , "Agency' s Respons e t o Application" ] (acknowledgin g tha t Winto n wa s no t serve dwit h th e Dismissa l Orde r o r Orde r o n Notice) . ' * Nun c Pr o Tun c Applicatio n fo r a n Awar do f

Attorne y Fee s an dOthe r Expense s Pursuan t

t o th e Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Ac t

(EAJA) , Cas e No . CP10EA0008 , Docke t No . FAA-2010-0787 , a t

1 , n. l (Augus t

6,2010 ) [hereinafter , "Application"] . " Id . at 2 (citin g 5 U.S.C . § 504(a)(1)) . ^^Id . 2X5 . ''I d '^IdsXl . ''I dat2 . ^ Se e id . a t

7 (providin g abrie f

statemen t

relatin g t o ne t

worth , no t

afiall exhibi t

a s require db y th e regulations) . ^ ' Agency' s Respons e t o Application , supr anot e 13 , a t 3 . ^^Idatl .

### underlying action.^ ^ However , th e FA

A di dno t oont^i dtha

t it s positio n in th e underlying proceeding was substantially justifie do r tha t special'circumstance s wouldmak e a n awar dunjust . Therefore , thes e issue s ar

e no t considere di n thi s decision.^ ^ Finally , o n Septembe

r 20,2010 , Empir

e setve datepl y ("Reply" ) to th e FAA' s Respons e t o the Application.^

^ I n it s Reply , Empir

e contendedllia

t it s Applicatio n wa s timely filed and , eve n i f it was late , th e deadline shoul db e extended"i n th e interes t of judicial fairHesS. " Empir e continuedto argue tha

t i t prevaile di n theundeaiyin g proceeding.^ ^ Finally , Empir

e attachedane

t wort h exhibit to it s Reply . ^

^ TH E LEGA L FRAMEWOR K Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Ac t Empir e seeks t o recove

r attorney' s fee s andexpense s unde r th e Equa l Acces s to Justic e Ac t ("EAJA").^ ' Congres s enacteda n initial , temporar

y versio n o f

EAJ A i n 1980,^° an

d permanentl

y enacteda

n amendedversio n o f

EAJ A i n 1985.^ ' The legislativ e histor y o f EAJ A indicate s tha

t Congress' s purpos e i n adoptin g EAJ A was * to enabl e smal

l businesse s to challeng e unreasonable action b y th e federa l government . Proponent s o f EAJ A wer e concernedthat , du e t o th e expens e of

litigation , smal

l businesse s migh

t simply settl e wit

h th e governmen

t ratho " tha n

^ ^ I da t 5 . ^ Se e Gree n Aviatio n Management, Co. , Docke t No . FAA*20O7(K269B9 , 200 8 W L 441796 , a

t • 2 (Januar y le.i^OOS ) (Benkin , A.L . J. ) (partie s didnot contes t whethe r th e '^revailingfpiarty " requiremen t wa s satisfied , an

dth e iS^t f wa s not considered) . -I ^ ' Apphcant' s Repl

y t o the Agency' s Answe

r t o Equa l Acces s t o Justjc © Act Applicatio n andlbques t

fef Furfli ^ Proceedings , CaseNo . CP10EA0008 , Docke t No . FAA42Ql(Ml1'8

7 (Si^tember

20,2010 ) [h<««aifitrfter

, "Aftylicant' s Repl y t o Agency' s Response"] . . • ^Mat6 . • ^'Ma t 6-17 . ^'Ma t Exhibi t 5 . ^ ' AppUcation, supr anot

e 14 , a t 2 (citing 5 U.S.C . § 504(a)(1)) . ^ Pub . L . No . 96-481 , 9

4 Stat . 232 1 (1980) . " Pub . L . No . 99-80,9 9 Stat . 183 (1985) . ' ^ Scarboroug

h v. Principi , 54 1 U.S . 401,40 6 (2004 ) (citit|giB;«L Rep . No . 99-120(1 ) (1985)) . See Susa n M . Olson , Ho w Muc h Acces s t o Justic e fromStat

e "Equa l Acces s t o JusticdActs^'? ; 7 1 Ghi.-Ken t L . Rev . 547 , 55 7 (199$) ; Louis e L . Hill , A

n Analysi s an dExplanatio n o f th e Equal Acces s t

o Justic e Act , 1 9 Ariz . St . L.J . 229,23 0 (1987) .defen dthei r lega l rights . T o addres s thes e concerns , Congres s create darigh t t o "one-way " fe e shiftin g (fi-o

mprivat e partie s t o th e goverrmient ) i f certai n requirement s ar e met.^' * Thi s right t o fee shiftin g i s asignifican t exceptio n t o th e America n Rule , unde r whic h litigant s normall y ar e require dt o bea r

thei r ow n attorney' s fee s an dcosts.^ ^ Also , i t constitute s apartia l waive r o f sovereig n immunity , unde r whic h "th e Unite dStates , a s sovereign , i s immun e fi^omsui t sav e a s i t consent s t o b e sued."^ ^ EAJ A i s compose do f

tw o sections , on e o f

whic h applie s t o civi l la w suits^^ an dth e othe r

n o o f whic h applie s t o administrativ e proceedings , Give n th e administrativ e contex t o f th e underlyin g actio n b y th e FA A agains t Empire , th e Applicatio n i n thi s cas e i s subjec t t o th e requirement s o f

5 U.S. C § 504 , th e sectio n o f EAJ A tha t

applies t o administrativ e proceedings . Also , th e Applicatio n i s subjec t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § § 14.01-14.30 , th e applicabl e regulation s implementin g EAJA . Th e Parties ' Contention s Th e parties ' argument s involv e thre e requirement s o f EAJ A an dth e implementin g regulations . First , sectio n 504(a)(2 ) provide s tha t " apart y seekin g an awar do f fee s an dothe r expense s shall , withi n thirt y day s o f afinal dispositio n i n th e adversar y adjudication , submi t t o th e agenc y a

n applicatio n whic h show s tha t th e part y i s aprevailin g part y an di s eligibl e t o

" H.R . Rep . No . 96-141 8 (1980) . Se e Susa n Gluc k Meze y an dSusa n M . Olson , Fe e Shiftin g an dPubli c Policy : The Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Act , 1 1 Judicatur e 13,1 5 (1993) . ' " 5 U.S.C . § 504(a)(1) . Seel&sachaiKos&n-Zvi , Jus t Fe e Shifting , 3 7 Fla . St . U . L . Rev . 717 , 731-3 3 (2010) . ' ^ Se e generall y Hill , supr anot e 32 , at 231 . ^ * U.S . V . Sherwood , 31 2 U.S . 584 , 58 6 (1941)) ; se e generall y Hill , supr anot e 32 , a t 231 . ^ ^ 2 8 U.S.C . § 241 2 (settin g fort h th e requirement s o f

EAJ A i n federa l cour t

proceedings) . ' * 5 U.S.C . § 50 4 (settin g fort h th e requirement s o f

EAJ A i n administrativ e agenc y proceedings) .

### receiv e a

n award . "^ ^ Th e partie s disput

e whether:Empir

e filed it s Applicatio n o

n time, an d whethe r w e hav e an

y discretio n t

o extendth e filing deadline.'* ^ Second , section 504(b)(1)(A) provide s that , to qualif y a s apart y eUgibl e to recove

r uiide r EAJA , abusines s entit

y applican t mus t hav e hadane t

wort h "no t exceed[ing i $7,000,000 " an d "no t mor e tha n 500 employee s a

t th e time adversar

y adjudication wa s initiated."'* ^ To implemen t thi s requirement , section 14.11(a ) of th e regulation s require s tiiat "eac h applicant.. . mus t provid e wit h it s application adetaile dexhibit showin g th e net

wort h of th e applican

t an dan y affiliate s whe

n th e proceeding wa s initiated.''^^ Th e FA A contend s tha

t th e Application should b e dismisseddu e t

o Empire' s failur

e to include anet

wort h exhibit.^ ^ However , Empir

e belatedly submittedane

t wort h exhibit along wit h it s Reply to th e FAA' s Respons e to th e AppHcation.'*' * Third , section 504(a)(1 ) provide s tha t "a n agency tha

t conduct s a

n adversar y adjudication shall award , t

o aprevailin g part

y othe r tha n th e Unite dStates , fee s an dothe r expoise s inc\jrre

d b y tha t part y in connection wit

h tha t proceeding , unles s th e adjudicativ e office r of th e agency finds tha t th e positio n o

f th e agency wa s substantially justifie dor tha t specia l circumstance s mak e a n awar dunjust."'* ^ Thus , i n orde

r to recove r attorney' s fee s an

dexpense s unde

r EAJA , a part y mus t hav e been a"prevailin g party " i n th e underlyin g action . Th e partie s disput e whethe r Empir e "prevailed " withi n th e meanin g o f sectio n 504.* ^

^ ' § 504(a)(2) ; se e als o 1 4 C.F.R . § 14.20(a) . * " Agency' s Respons e t

o Application , supr anot

e 13 , a t 3-4 ; Applicant' s Repl

y to Agency' s Response , supr anot e 25 , a t 6 . « § 504(b)(1)(B) . *M4C.F.R. § 14.11(a) . * ' Agency' s Respons e to Application , supr anot e 13 , a t 7 . ^ Apphcant' s Repl

y t o Agency' s Response , supr anot e 25 , a t Exhibit 5 . " ' § 504(a)(1) ; se e als o 1 4 C.F.R . § 14.01 . * * Agency' s Respons e t

o AppUcation , supr anot

e 13 , a t 5 ; AppUofotl s "Bieply t o Agency' s Response , supr anot e 25 , a t 6-17 .Additionally , sectio n 504(b)(1)(A ) provide s tha t tiie amoun t

o f an y awar dgrante dunde r EAJ A mus t

b e "reasonable.""* ^ Whil e th e FA A ha s not argue dtha t

Empir e seek s a

n unreasonabl y larg e award , th e implementin g regulation s direc t tha t th e administrativ e la w judg e independentl y conside r

th e reasonablenes s o f

th e amoun t

sought . Fo r th e followin g reasons , w e gran t Empire' s Application . First , althoug h Empir e di dno t file it s Applicatio n o n time , w e hav e decide dt o exten dth e filing deadlin e unde r equitabl e tollin g principles . Second , Empir e di dno t file ane t wort h exhibi t

with it s Application , but

Empir e submitte dane t

worth exhibi t

wit h it s Repl y brief

, an dw e accep t

tha t amendmen t

t o th e Application , becaus e i t

relate s t o th e sam e conduct , transaction , o r occurrenc e a s th e Applicatio n itsel f Third , w e conclud e tha t Empir e wa s th e "prevailin g party " i n th e underlyin g litigation , an dgran t th e Application . Finally , w e conclud e tha t th e awar dsough t

b y Empir e exceed s th e amoxm t permitte dunde r

th e statut e an dregulation s an dreduc e th e awar dt o $2,390 . TH E TIMELINES S O F TH E APPLICATIO N Th e Applicatio n wa s no t

timel y filed. Empir e filedth e Applicatio n o n Augus t 6 , 2010 , on e da y afte

r th e filing deadline . However , imde r equitabl e tollin g principles , th e lat e filing o f th e Applicatio n shoul db e excused . Calculatin g th e Filin g Deadlin e Sectio n 504(a)(2 ) provide s tha t " apart y seekin g a n awar do f fee s an dothe r

expense s shall , withi n thirt y day s o f afinal dispositio n i n th e adversar y adjudication , submi t t o th e agenc y a n applicatio n whic h show s tha t th e part y i s aprevailin g part y an di s eligibl e t o receiv e a n

' ' § 504(b)(1)(A) . ^ ' 1 4 C.F.R . § 14.05(c) ("i

n determining th e reasonablenes s o f the fe e sough t fo r a n attorney , agent , o

r exper t witness , the A U o

r adjudicative office

r shall consider " variou s factors) .

- 7 -award.""* ^ Th e implementin g regulations , i n sectio n 14.20(c) , provid e tha t a"final disposition " occur s o n "th e dat e o n whic h an unappeale dinitia l decisio n become s administrativel y final."^° A writte n initia l decisio n become s "administrativel y final" i f i t i s no t appeale dwithi n te n day s p f service.^ ' I n thi s case , th e Dismissa l Orde r wa s serve do n Jun e 23,2010 . Becaus e i t was no t appealed , i t

becam e "administrativel y final" te n day s later . Therefore , th e "final disposition " o f th e cas e occurre do n Jul y 6,2010.^ ^ A s aresult . Empir e ha dthirt y day s fromthen , unti l Augus t 5,2010 , t o file an EAJ A application . Empir e filedit s implicatio n o n Augus t 6,2010 . A s a result , th e Applicatio n was on e da y late . I n it s Reply , Empir e argue s tha t th e filing deadlin e shoul db e calculate dbase do n th e Orde r o n Notice , not

th e Dismissa l Order . ^

^ Th e Orde r

o n Notic e was issue do n Jul y 1,2010 , a wee k afte r th e Dismissa l Order.^" ^ Therefore , accordin g t o Empire , th e "final disposition " o f th e proceedin g occurre do n Jul y 12,2010 , an dth e deadlin e for filing an EAJ A applicatio n wa s Augus t 11,2010.^ ^ Thi s argumen t fails , becaus e th e "initia l decision " o f th e administrativ e la w judg e was th e Dismissa l Order , no t th e Orde r

o n Notice . Th e judg e dismisse dth e cas e i n th e Dismissa l Order.^^ I n contrast , i n th e Orde r onNotioe , th e judg e merel y explaine dtha t h e coul d no t ac t o n filings i n th e case , becaus e h e ha dalread y "dismisse dthi s proceeding " an d"ther e i s n o

* ' § 504(a)(2) ; se e als o 1 4 C.F.R . § 14.20(a ) ("a n applicatio n ma

y b e filed wheneve

r th e apphcan t ha s prevailedi n the proceeding , but

i n n o cas e late r tha n 3 0 day s afte

r tUetF. ^ titocistcttuxiaks^' s final disposition of the proceeding") . ° Se e § 14.20(c) (definin

g "fina l disposition " a s the late

r ,o£v9lJgMS^ent^ , including "the dat e on whic h a n unappeale dinitia l decision become s administirativel y ffcoal'j| . ^ * Se e § 13.233(a

) ( apart y appealin g awritte n initia l decision mus t

file a"notic e of

appea l not late r tha n 1 0 day s afte r .. . servic e o

f th e writte n initia l decisio n o

n th e parties") . ' ^ Se e Agency' s Respons e t

o Apphcation , supr anot

e 13 , a t 3 , n . 1 (explaining tha

t th e deadlin

e fo r filiag a n appea l fel l o n Jul y 6 becaus e "th e 10 * da

y afte r June 2 3 wa s Jul

y 3 , whic h fel l on aSaturday " an

dMonda y "wa s aFedera

l holida/') . " ^pUcant' s Repl

y t o Agency' s Response , supr anot e 25 , a t 5 . ^ Orde r o n Notice , supr anot

e 10 , a t 1 . ^ ^ Apphcant' s Repl

y t o Agency' s Response , supr anot e 25 , a t 5 . ' * Dismissa

l Order, jwpr

anot e 4 , a t 1 . - 8 -e n

longe r apendin g proceedin g i n thi s docket. " Therefore , th e filing deadlin e shoul db e calculate dbase do n th e Dismissa l Order , makin g th e Applicatio n untimely . Discretio n t o Exten dth e Filin g Deadlin e Th e FA A argue s that , becaus e th e Applicatio n wa s untimel y filed, i t mus t b e dismissed . Accordin g t o th e FAA , th e judg e ha s n o discretio n t o exten dth e filing deadline , becaus e th e deadlin e i s "jurisdictional " an d"ma y no t b e waived . "^

^ Th e FA A als o contends tha t waiver s o f sovereig n immunity , suc h a s th e on e grante di n EAJA , mus t b e "strictl y construe di n favo r o f th e sovereign." ^ However , th e Suprem e Court' s decisio n i n Scarboroug h v . Princip i instruct s otherwise . ^

° I n Scarborough , plaintif

f prevaile dagains t

th e Departmen t

o f Veteran s Affair s o n aclai m for disabiUt y benefits.^ ^ Afterwards , h e filed atimel y EAJ A application , bu t faile dt o alleg e that th e government' s positio n was no t "substantiall y justified " a s require db y th e applicatio n conten t specification s o f

EAJA.^ ^ Plaintif

f attempte dt o amen dhi s application , bu t onl y afte r th e 30-da y deadlin e fo

r filing an applicatio n ha dpassed.^ ^ Th e governmen t argue dtha t

th e applicatio n shoul db e dismisse dbecaus e EAJA' s conten t an dtimin g requirement s ar e "jurisdictional " an d waiver s o f

sovereig n immunit y "mus t b e construe dstrictl y i n favo r o f th e sovereign."^' * Th e Suprem e Cour

t rejecte dthes e arguments . First , th e Court hel dtha t EAJA' s "30-da y filing deadlin e for

fe e application s an dit s application-conten t specification s ar e not

properl y type da s

' ^ Orde r o n Notice , supr anot e 10 , a t 1 . ^ * Agency' s Respons e t o AppUcation , supr anot e 13 , a t 4 (citin g MonarkBoa t

Co . v . NLRB , 70 8 F.2 d132 2 (8t h Cir . 1983)) . ^ ' I d(quotin g Escoba r

v . U.S . I.N.S. , 93 5 F.2 d650 (4th Cir . 1991)) . * ° Scarboroug h v . Principi , 54 1 U.S . 401,41 4 (2004 ) (discussin g 2 8 U.S.C . § 2412(d)(1)(B) , th e EAJ A sectio n tha t set s ou t th e requirement s fo r

apphcation s injudicia l proceedings) . "Ma t 408 . * ^ Ma t 409 . ''I d *"/</ . at 409-10 .•••BB B 

### 'jurisdictional.'"^ ^ Second , th e Cotir t hel dtha t EAJA' s waive

r o f sovereig n immunit

y i s no t "conditione don th e fe

e applicant' s meticulou s complianc e wit h eac h an dever y requirement.. . within 3 0 day s o f

final judgment."^

^ Instead , "limitation s principle s shoul dgenerall y appl y t p th e Governmen

t 'i n the sam

e wa y that ' the y eqjpl

y t o privat e parties . "^

^ Th e Cour t reasonedtha

t "onc e Congres s waive s sovereign immimity.. . th e judicia l applicatio n o f

atime prescriptio n t

o suit s agains t

th e Government , i n th e sam e wa y th e prescriptio n i s applicabl e to privat e suits , 'amount s t o little , i f any , broadenin g of

th e congressiona

l waiver.'"^^ Thus , th e Cour t conclude d tha t plaintiff' s EAJ

A applicatio n nee dno t

b e dismissed . Rather , unde r th e "relation-back " doctrine , plaintif

f couldamen

dhi s applicatio n to ad

dth e allegatio n tha

t th e govermnent' s positio n i n th e underlying proceedin g wa s no t substantially justified . Base don th e Suprem

e Court' s decisio n i n Scarborough , th e Sixt h Circuit heldin Townsen dv. Commissione

r o f Socia l Securit y tha t th e 30-da y filing deadlin e se

t fort h i n EAJ A i s subject to equitabl e tollin g principles.^ ' In Townsend , a n EAJ A applican

t di dno t file unti l ove

r thre e month s afte

r th e filing deadline . Th e distric t cour t hel dthat , becaus e th e filing deadline i s "jurisdictiona

l in natur e an dmus t b e strictly construed.. . i t

lackedth e powe

r t o appl y equitable tolling."' ° O

n appeal , th e Sixt

h Circuit reverse dan

dremanded , notin g tha

t "tim e requirement s in lawsuit s betwee

n privat e litigant s ar

e customarily subject

t o equitabl e tolling."' ^ Therefore , it

" I da t 414 . Althoug

h th e FA A relie s on MonarkBoa

t Co . v . NLRB . 70 8 F.2d1322,132 6 (8t h Cir . 1983) , -VAX

K th e Cour t o f Appeal s statedtha

t "th e EAJA' s thirty-da

y tim e limitation " i s a"jurisdictiona l requirement, " tha

t statemen t ha s bee n supersededb y Scarborough , i n wiiic h th e Suprem

e Cour t hel dtha t EAJA' s filing deadlin

e an d appUcation-conten

t specification s ar

e no t "jurisdictional. " ^Scarborough,5A\\].S . a

t ^19-201 . *'' I da t 42 1 (quotin

g Franconi aAssoc , v. U.S. , 53 6 U.S . 129,14 5 (2002)) . ^ Id . (quotin

g Irwin v . De

p ' t o f Veteran s Affairs , 49 8 U.S . 89,9 5 (1990)) . Althoug h th e FA A relie s o n Escoba r v . U.S . I.N.S , 93 5 F.2d650,65 4 (4t h Cir . 1991) , wher

e th e Cour t o f Ajqwal s hel dtha

t "waiver s o

f sovereig n inliriunit y

.. . mus t b e strictl y construedin favo

r of the sovereign , inScariiifroiigh , tile Suprem e Cour t hel dthat , wit

h r^ec t t o EAJA' s filing deadlin

e an dapphcation-conten

t specificatiodB, ' littiitil^ti s principle s shouldappl y t o &e governmen

t in th e sam e wa y tha t the y appl y to privat e parties . * ' Townsen dv. Com m' r o f Socia l Security , 41 5 F.3 d578,58 2 (6t h Cir . 2004) . TM Ma t 581 . ^ ' I da t 58 2 (quotin

g Irwin v. Dep' t

o f Veteran s Affairs , 49 8 U.S . 89 , 9 5 (1990)) .



### -10

-hel dthat , unde r Scarborough , th e filing deadlin e i n EAJ A shoul db e subjec t t o equitabl e tollin g a s well . I n th e presen t

case , equitabl e tollin g principle s weig h i n favo r o f permittin g Empir e t q file it s Applicatio n afte

r th e deadline . A s th e Sixth Circui t explaine di n asecon dappea l afte r th e reman di n Townsend , factor s tha t weig h i n favo r

o f equitabl e tollin g includ e "1 ) lac k o f notic e o f th e filing requirement ; 2 ) lac k o f constructiv e knowledg e o f th e filing requirement ; 3 ) du e diligenc e i n pursuin g one' s rights; 4 ) absenc e o f prejudic e t o th e defendant ; 5 ) th e plaintiff s reasonablenes s i n remainin g ignoran t o f th e particula r

lega l requirement."'' ^ Here , Empir e lacke d notic e o f th e filing requiremen t

an dwas reasonabl e i n remainin g ignoran t o f it . Empire' s counse l wa s no t

serve dwit h th e Dismissa l Order , becaus e h e wa s erroneousl y omitte dfromth e servic e list . A s aresult , h e di dno t becom e awar e unti l late r tha t th e 30-da y perio dfor

filing an EAJ A applicatio n ha dstarte dt o run . Also , Eiripir e was diligen t i n pursuin g it s rights. Despit e not bein g serve dwit h th e Dismissa l Order , Empir e was abl e t o file it s EAJ A applicatio n o n Augus t 6 , 2010 , onl y on e da y after th e filing deadline . Therefore , w e findtha t th e one-da y dela y can an dshoul db e excused . TH E TIMELINES S AN D ADEQUAC Y O F TH E NE T WORT H EXHIBI T Th e FA A argue s tha t

Empire' s Applicatio n mus t b e dismisse dbecaus e Empir e faile dt o submi t ane t worth exhibi t

alon g wit h it s Application.^' * However , Empir e attache dane t worth exhibi t t o it s Repl y i n orde r

t o remed y th e omissio n i n th e Application.^ ^ Therefore , w e conside r whethe r Empir e ma y amen dit s applicatio n t o includ e ane t wort h exhibi t

afte r th e filing deadlin e

'^I d '' ' Townsen

dV . Comm' r o f Socia l Security , 48 6 F.3 d127,13 2 (6t h Cir . 2007) . ^ * Agency' s Respons e t

o Application , supr anot

e 13 , a t 7 . ^ ' Applicant' s Repl

y t o Agency' s Response , supr anot e 25 , a t Exhibit 5 . -11

-

### ha s elapsedan dwhethe r th e net wort h exhibi t satisfie s th e requirement s of th e implementing regulations . Amendment s t o EAJ A Application s A s discussedabove , th e Suprem e Cour t explaine din Scarborough v . Princip i tha t limitation s principle s shouldgenerally apply to th e Governmen t i n th e sam

e wa y tha t they appl y to privat e parties.^ ' Accordingly , th e Cour t hel dtha t the"relation-back " doctrine govern s whethe r a n EAJ A applican t shouldb e permitte dt o amen dhi s or he r apphcatio n afte

r th e filing deadline ha s passed.' * Unde r th e "relation-back " doetrine , a n amendmen

t t o a n EAJ A application relate s bac

k to th e dat e on which th e initia

l applicatio n wa s filed i f

i t '"aros e ou t of th e conduct , transaction , o r

occurrenc e set

fort h o r attempte dt o b e set

forth ' i n th e initia

l application."' ^ Fo

r thi s reason , in Ventur

aAi r Services^ ^ th e administrativ e la w judge' s final decision o n behalf of th e FA A Adminisfrator* ^ penmtte da n EAJ A applican

t to belatedly submi

t anet wort h exhibi t afte r th e filing deadline.* ^ I

n Ventura , th e EAJ

A applicant' s initia

l submission simpl

y asserte dtha

t th e "Applican

t i s acorporatio n wit

h anet wort h of no t mor e tha n $ 7 million an

dnot mor e tha n 500 employee s a

t th e time th e adversar

y adjudication was initiated,"* ^ muc

h lik e Empire' s AppUcatio

n i n th e present

case.*' * The judg e hel dtha t thi s "conclusor y generalization " wa s " afa

r cr y fro mth e detaile dfinancial datatha t th e regulation s ^*5e e 1 4 C.F.R . §14.11 . " Scarborough , 54 1 U.S . a t 421 . ''Ma t 418 . TM Id . (quotin

g Fed . Rul e Civ . Proc . 15(c)(2)) . See als o Bazolo v . West , 15 0 F.3 d138

0 (Fed . Cir . 1998 ) (EAJ

A applican t allowe dt o amen dafie r th e 30-da y deadline i n orde

r to pur e afailur e to estabhs h tha

t the applican

t satisfie d th e ne t wort h eUgibilit y requirements) . * ° Ventur aAi r Serv. , Inc. , Docke

t No . FAA-2007-27540,2007 W L 282377 2 (Septembe

r 14,2007 ) (Benkin , A.L.J.) . " Se e 1 4 C.F.R . § 14.28(a

) (i f neithe r part y "seek s revie

w within 3 0 day s afte

r [a n initial ] decision i s issued , i t shal l becom e final"); Warbelow' s Ai

r Ventures , Inc. , Docke

t No . FAA-2000-7215,200 5 W L 3076623 , a

t *2 , n.l O (Novembe r 2,2005 ) (Voder, C.A.L . J. ) ("Althoug h apart y ma y tqppea l thi s decision pursuan

t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 14.28(a

)

.. . th e partie s hav

e agree dnot t o see k revie w of th e administrativ e la

w judge' s decision andtha

t thi s decision ma

y becom e the Fina l Decision i n thi s proceeding.") . " ^ Kenft<rfl , 200 7 W L 2823772 , a

t *l-2 . "7rf.at*l . ^ Application , supr anot

e 14 , a t 7 . 

### -12

-o r

prescribe. " However , relyin g o n Scarborough , th e judg e hel dtha t th e applican t

wa s entitie dt o amen dit s applicatio n t o suppl y th e missin g information.^ ^ Th e ne t worth exhibit

tha t Empir e submitte dwith it s Repl y pertain s t o th e sam e "conduct , transaction , o r

occurrence " se t

fort h i n it s Application . Th e Applicatio n aim s t o sho w tha t Empir e i s entitle dt o recove r unde r EAJ A base do n th e Complain t filedb y th e FA A o n February 16 , 2010.* ^ Similarly , th e ne t wort h exhibi t

aim s t o sho w tha t

Empir e satisfie dth e ne t

worth eligibility requirement s o f EAJ A "o n Februar y 16 , 2010 , th e dat e o n whic h th e Complain t was filedi n thi s matter . "^

^ Therefore , th e ne t

wort h exhibi t

tha t Empir e include dwith it s Repl y relate s t o it s ne t

wort h o n th e dat e tha t

Empir e filedit s Applicatio n an dshoul db e accepted . Sufficienc y o f

Ne t Wort h Exhibi t Unde r th e regulation s implementin g EAJA , th e applican t mus t submi t ane t wort h exhibit , showin g "th e ne t

wort h o f th e applican t

an dan y affiliate s whe n th e proceedin g wa s initiated."^ ^ Also , i t mus t "provide[ ] fiill disclosur e o f th e applicant' s an dit s affiliates ' asset s an d liabilities."^ " Finally , i t

mus t "describ e an y fransfers o f asset s from, o r

obligation s incurre dby , th e applican t

o r an y affiliate , occurrin g i n th e one-year perio dprio r

t o th e dat e o n whic h th e proceedin g was initiated , tha t reduce dth e ne t

wort h o f th e applican t

an dit s affiliate s belo w th e applicabl e ne t

wort h ceiling."^ ^ O n on e hand , th e regulation s stat e tha t th e ne t wort h exhibi t

mus t b e "detailed " an d "sufficien t t o determin e whethe r

th e applican t

qualifie s unde r

th e standards " fo

r eligibility.^ ^ Thus , i n Shootin g Sta r

Ranch , th e Tent h Circui t decide dtha t

an applicant' s "bare assertio n tha t i t * ' Ventura , 200 7 W L 2823772 , a t *l-2 . '*Mat*3 . 8 7 Application , supr anot e 14 , a t 1 . ' * Applicant' s Repl y t o Agency' s Response , supr anot e 25 , a t Exhibi t 5 . *'1 4 C.F.R. § 14.11(a) . *" § 14.11(a) . " § 14.11(b) . " § 14.11(a) . -13

-

### meet s th e statutor y criteria " wa s insufficien

t to show tha

t i t me t th e net wort h ehgibilit y requirements.^

^ There , the applican

t ha dsubmitted"a

n unverifiedan

dunswor n lette r fromit s accountant " an

d"di dno t eve n produc e a

n affidavi t o f it s net wort h whe n face dwit h achalleng e b y th e government."^' * O

n th e othe r hand , th e regulation s stat

e tha t "th e exhibi

t ma y b e in an y for mconvenien

t t o th e applicant."^

^ Thus , m . Ai r Sunshin e th e adminisfrative la

w judge' s final decision o n behalf of th e FA A Adminisfratorhel dtha

t a n apphcant' s submission o f ata x retur n satisfiedth e net

wort h exhibit requirement.^

^ The judg e explaine dtha

t th e regulation s "do[ ] not requir e astatemen

t specificall y prepare dfo

r th e purpos e o f

showing th e appUcan

t company' s ne

t worth, " an

dtha t th e ta x retur n wa s sufficien

t to determine th e applicant' s eligibility.^ ' Here , Empir

e ha s provide dmor

e tha n a"bar e assertion " tha

t i t meet s th e net

wort h eligibilit y requirements . It

ha s provide dastatement , "unde r penalt y o f perjury, " fromit s presiden t tha t Empire' s net

wort h wa s "(-$900,000) " o n Februar y 16,2010 , th e dat

e on whic h th e FA A filed th e Complaint ; tha

t Empir e ha s n o affiliates , it s asset s wer e $1,300,000 , an

dit s liabilitie s wer

e $2,100,000 o n Februar

y 16,2010 ; an

dtha t n o transfer s o f

asset s or obligation s reducedEmpfre' s ne

t wort h belo w th e ceiling.^

- Therefore , th e ne t wort h exhibit attachedt o Empire' s Repl

y satisfie s th e requirement s set forti i i n sectio n 14.1 1 o f

th e implementing regulations .

' ^ Shootin g Sta r Ranch , LL

C V . C/.5. , 23 0 F.3 d1176,117 8 (lOf h Cir . 2000) . ^I d ' ^ § 14.11(a) ; see als o U.S . v . 88.8 8 Acre s o f Land , 90 7 F.2 d106,10 8 (9t

h Cir . 1990

) ("som e informalit

y of proo f i s appropriate, " becaus e a'"reques t fo r attorney' s fee s shouldno t

result i n asecon dmajo r litigation"' ) (quotin

g Hensle y v. Eckerhart , 46 1 U.S . 424,43 7 (1983)) . ' * Ai r Sunshine . Inc. , Docke

t No . FAA-2009-0094 , 2009 W L 3696376 , a

t * 3 (Novembe

r 4,2009 ) (Benkin , A.L.J.) . '" M " Applicant' s Repl

y t o Agency' s Response , supr anot e 25 , a t Exhibit 5 . 

### -14

-

### TH E PREVAILIN G PART Y REQUIREMEN T I n orde r t o recove r

attorney' s fee s an dexpense s unde r EAJA , an applican t

mus t hav e bee n a"prevailin g party " i n th e underl)dn g proceeding . ^ ^ Th e partie s disput e whethe r Empir e was a"prevailin g party " withi n th e meanin g o f sectio n 504.^° ° I n thei r

briefs , bot h partie s assum e tha t

th e Suprem e Court' s decisio n i n Buckhanno n Boar dan dCar e Home , Inc . v . Wes t Virgini aDepartmen t

o f Healt h an dHuma n Resources'^ ' define s "prevailin g party " for purpose s 10 2 o f 5 U.S.C . § 504 . Nevertheless , w e conclud e tha t Buckhanno n shoul dnot

b e extende dfrom civi l action s i n federal cour t t o adminisfrativ e enforcemen t proceeding s unde r

sectio n 504 . Furthermore , w e conclud e tha t Empir e wa s th e "prevailin g party " i n th e underlyin g proceeding , i n accordanc e with prio r

initia l decision s b y adminisfrativ e la w judges , whic h becam e final decision s o f

th e Adminisfrator . Th e Buckhanno n Tes t I n Buckhanno n plaintiff

s sue dth e Stat e o f

Wes t Virgini aan dother s for

declaratory an d injvinctiv e relie f

o n th e groimd s tha t

arequiremen t

o f astat e regulatio n violate dth e Fai r Housin g Amendment s Ac t

("FHAA" ) an dth e American s wit h Disabilitie s Ac t ("ADA").*° ^ Whil e th e cas e was pending , th e Wes t Virgini alegislatur e eliminate dth e requiremen t fromth e regulation , thereb y mootin g th e case.\°' * Plaintiff s the n sough t

attorney' s fee s unde r

fee-shiftin g provision s

" 5 U.S.C . § 504(a)(1 ) ("a

n agency tha

t conduct s a

n a:dversar y adjudication shall award , to aprevailing part y othe r tha n the Unite dStates , fee s an

dothe r expense s incurre db y tha

t part y in connectio n wit

h tha t proceeding , unles s the adjudicativ e office r of the agency finds tha

t the positio n of

the agency wa s substantially justifie do r tha t specia l circumstance s mak

e a n awar dunjusf') ; see als o 1 4 C.F.R . § 14.0 1 ("a n eligibl e part

y ma y receiv e a n awar dwhe n i t prevail s ove

r th e FAA") . " ^ Agency' s Respons e t

o Application , supr anot

e 13 , a t 5 ; Apphcant' s Repl

y to Agency' s Response , supranot e 25 , a t 6-17 . " " Buckhanno

n B dan dCar

e Home , Inc . v. W

. Va . Dep' t o f Healt h an dHuma

n Res. , 53 2 U.S . 59 8 (2001) . '" ^ Se e Agency' s Respons e to Application , supr anot e 13 , a t 5 ; Applicant' s Repl

y to Agency' s Response , supr anot e 25 , a t 6-17 . ' " Buckhannon , 53 2 U.S . a

t 601 . '«^ M -15

-o f

th e FHA A an dADA , both o f whic h contai n "jprgvailui g party " requirements.'° ^ Plaintiff s argue dtha t

the y ha dprevaile dunde r th e catalys t

.theory , "whic h posit s tha t aplaintif f i s a 'prevailin g party ' i f

i t achieve s th e desire dresul t bec^ e th e lawsui t

brough t abou t avoluntar y chang e i n th e defendant' s conduct."'^ ^ Th e SupraiaeCpiirt,rejecte dplaintiffs ' position . I t reasone dthat , tmde r

th e catalys t

theory , " aplaintif

f poul drecove r

attorney' s fee s i f

i t estabhshe d tha t th e complain t

ha dsufficient

meri t t o withstan da

. motio n t o dismiss."'^ ^ However , th e Cour t conclude dtha t

agreate r leve l o f "lega l merit " wa ? r^yjip di n tha t cas e an dadopte damor e restrictiv e test . '" ^ I t

hel dthat , t o qualif

y a s a"prevailin g party, " aplaintif f mus t achiev e (1 ) a materia l alteratio n i n th e lega l relationshi p o f theparti ^ tihat

i s (2 ) judiciall y S£»nctioned.*° ' Unde r thi s test , " adefendant' s volxmtar y chang e i n CQndupt

, althoug h perhap s accomplishin g what th e plaintif

f sough t t o achiev e b y th e lawsuit, " doe s no t qualif y plaintif f for "prevailin g party " status , becaus e i t

lack s sufficien t

judicia l sanction . ^' ° Whethe r Buckhanno n Define s "Prevailjm g Parfar* ? ^nde r Sectio n 50 4 Subsequen t

t o Buckhannon , man y Circui t pp]Urt s hay e decide dih.d

X Bucl^anno n define s "prevailin g party " fo

r purpose s o f

2 8 U.S.C . § 2412,,th e EAJ A sectio n tha t appHe s t o proceeding s i n federal court.' " O n th e othe r han4 , i t i^ , |io t bee n establishe dtha t

Buckhanno n define s "prevailin g party " for purpose s o f

5 U>S.Cv5.5j^.*^ ^ Notably , i n Turne r v . Nationa l Transportatio n Safet

y Board , th e D.C . Circuit specificall y decline dt o decid e whethe r

10 7 M a t 60 5 (interna l quotation s omitted) . '"» M \ "®M . a t 604-05 . ""Ma t 605 . " ' See , e.g. . M av . Chertoff , 54 7 F.3 d342 , 34

4 (2 dCir. 2608 ) (actio n unde r 2 8 U.S.C . § 2412(d)(1)(A

) agains t th e Unite dState s Citizenshi p an dImmigratio

n Service^) . v •' , " ^ Althoug h sectio n 2412 , whic

h govern s EAJ A a^li|5aiipn

^ iii^i^*^ ^ feder

4 court , i s locate di n Titj e 28 , concernin g th e judiciar y an djudicia l procedure , sectidfi^i)4,'»^ch govern s EAJ A application

s i n administrativ

e adjudications , i s locate

di n Tid e 5 , a n entirel y differen t par t o f di e U.S . Code, whic

h relate s t o jBdministrative; . agencies . -16 'Buckhanno n applie s t o sectio n 504."' ' Th e D.C . Circui t explaine dtha t

i t ha s "neve r

specificall y hel dBuckhanno n define s 'prevailin g party ' a s i t i s use di n § 504(a)(1) , whic h govern s fee

shiftin g i n a

n agenc y adjudication, " tha t it s case s s o fa

r "hav e al l involve d2 8 U.S.C . § 2412(d)(1)(A) , whic h concern s fee-shiftin g i n acivi l action, " an dtha t i t decline dt o determin e a

t tha t tim e "whethe r

th e understandin g o f

'prevailin g party ' i n Buckhanno n necessaril y o r alway s applie s t o tha t

phras e i n § 504(a)(1).""' * I n Buckhannon , th e Suprem e Court wa s concerne dthat , unde r th e catalys t

theory , a plaintif f woul db e entitle dt o recove r attorney' s fee s simpl y becaus e i t ha dsucceede di n pressurin g adefendan t

int o changin g it s behavior , eve n thoug h th e lawsui t itsel f wa s meritless." ^ I n contrast , entirel y differen t polic y concern s ar e implicate dwhe n agovernmen t agenc y bring s a meritles s enforcemen t

actio n agains t

aprivat e defendant,'" ^ a s occurre dhere." ^ I n thi s case , Empir e "di dno t

initiat e acaus e o f

actio n agains t

agovernmenta l agenc y t o challeng e th e legalit y 1 1 o o f it s actions. " Instead , Empir e wa s "give n achoic e t o eithe r acquiesce " an dpa y acivi l

" ^ Turne r v . NTSB , 60 8 F.3 d12 , 15 , n. 3 (D.C . Cir. 2010) . ' '' * Id . Th e court

determine dtha t

th e applicant s wer e no t

prevailin g parties , becaus e th e judg e dismisse dth e cas e withou t prejudic e an dcause dn o chang e i n th e relationshi p betwee n th e parties . Id . a t 15-16 . Neithe r

part y raise d th e questio n o f

whethe r Buckhanno n applie dt o § 504(a)(1) , an dconsequenfl y th e coiu t di dno t conside r tha t question . Id . a t

15 , n.3 . I n th e underlyin g NTS B action , Application s o f Turne r an dCoonan , NTS B Orde r No . EA

5467,200 9 W L 2419616 , a t +5- 6 (Jul y 29,2009) , di e NTS B hel dtha t Buckhanno n define s "prevaihn g party " for bot h section s 241 2 an d50 4 o f EAJA , treatin g "th e questio n a s essentiall y amatte r o f purel y lega l interpretation, " withou t considerin g "potentiall y competin g poHc y considerations " an dth e significan t difference s betwee n EAJ A application s b y plaintiff

s i n federa l cour t

an dapplication s b y defendant s i n administrativ e adjudications . I n dissent , Membe r Simiwal t argue dtha t

th e analysi s i n Buckhannon , whic h involve d" aplaintiflP s tenuou s EAJ A claim, " shoul dno t

b e applie dt o th e situatio n i n whic h a n applican t i s "force dint o adefensiv e postur e .. . du e solel y t o th e action s o f th e Administrator. " Id . a t *10 . Th e decisio n o f

th e NTS B i s no t

bindin g preceden t

i n thi s proceeding ; an d it s "weigh t

a s authority " depend s upo n "th e persuasivenes s o f it s reasoning. " Se e Tr

i Stat e Aero , Inc. , Docke t

No . FAA-2007-27917,200 8 W L 503398 , a t *1 0 (Februar y 22 , 2008 ) (Benkin , A.L.J.) . W e findth e dissentin g member' s reasonin g i n Application s o f Turne r an dCoona n t o b e mor e persuasiv e tha n th e majority opinion , an dmor e consisten t with th e legislativ e histor y an dpurpos e o f sectio n 504 . ' " Buckhannon , 53 2 U.S . a t 605-06 . " * Se e Application s o f

Turne r an dCoonan , 200 9 W L 2419616 , a t "^l O (Sumwalt , Member , dissenting) . " ' Se e Complainant' s Motio n t o Withdraw , supr anot e 5 , a t 1 , T [ 3 (explaining tha t

th e FA A brough t

it s enforcemen t actio n agains t

th e wron g entit y b y mistake) . TM Se e Application s o f

Turne r an dCoonan , 200 9 W L 2419616 , a t *1 0 (Sumwalt , Member , dissenting) . -17

-

### penalt

y o r t o defen ditsel f an dincu r attorney' s fee s an

dexpenses." ^ Thi s dilemm ai s precisel

y wha t Congres s sough

t t o addres s whe

n i t enacte dEAJA . Congres s wa s concernedthat , du e t o th e expens e of

litigation , smal

l businesse s might

simply settl e wit

h th e governmen

t rathe r tha p asser t thei r lega l rights.^^° Therefore , Congres s create darigh t to recove r attorney' s fee s t

o 19 1 

### empowe r smal l businesse s to challeng e unreasonabl e governmen t action . Give

n tha t th e Suprem e Court' s concem s in Buckhannon differe ds o greatiy fromth e polic y concem s implicatedb y adminisfrative enforcemen t actions , w e conclude tha

t w e shoul dno t

appl y th e Buckhanno

n tes t fo r "prevailin g party " to a

n applicatio n unde

r sectio n 50

4 an dthereb y frusfrat

e Congress' s primar

y purpos e fo

r enactin g tha

t section . Here , th e FA

A admits tha t

i t suedEmpir

e h y mistak

e an dtha t i t believe s a

n unrelated part y committe

dth e allegedviolations.'^ ^ It seems , therefore , tha

t th e FAA' s action agains t Empfr e wa s th e kindo f

tmreasonabl e governmen

t actio n tha t Congres s hope dEAJ

A woulddeter . Th e FA A als o argue s tha

t Empfr e caimo t recove r becaus e Empfr

e wa s no t th e "prevailing party " in the imderlying action , notin g tha t unde r Buckhannon one mus t

achieve ajudiciall y sanctione dchang e in th e parties ' lega l relationship to qualif

y a s a"prevailin g party, " an da "defendant' s voluntar

y chang e i n conduct " does f po t qualif y aplaintif

f fo r "prevailin g party " status , becaus e i t

lack s judicia

l sanction.* ^ Tli e FA

A reason s that , becaus e it voluntaril y withdre w it s Complaint , th e adminisfrative Ik ^ j1i||lg e di dno t sauctio n an

y chang e i u th e parties ' relationship;*^' * th e judge' s dismissa l o f li e Complain

t wa s merely a

n "adminisfrative housekeeping measure, " no t judiciall y sanctiohes

dif0Hfef|* ^ an dth e judg e di dno t

exercis e an

y TM Se e i d '^ ^ Se e suprapp . 4- 5 an

dnote s 32-34 . ' ^ Se e Conqjlainant' s Motion t

o Withdraw , supr anot

e 5 , a t \ , ^3 . ' ^ 5McAAtfn«on

, 53 2 U.S . a

t 604-05 . ' ^ Se e Agency' s Respons e to Application , supr anot e 13 , at 6 . ' " I d(quotin

g Turne r v . NTSB , 60 8 F.3 d12,16) . 

### -18

-discretio n i n dismissing th e Complain t wit h prejudice . Rather , th e FA A contends tha t th e judg e dismisse dth e Complain t

wit h prejudic e onl y becaus e th e applicabl e Rule s o f Practic e compelle d hi mt o d o so.'^ ^ Therefore , th e FA A argue s tha t Empir e was no t

th e "prevailin g party. " A s discusse dabove , w e d o no t agre e tha t

th e Buckhanno n tes t

for "prevailin g party " shoul db e extende dt o EAJ A case s unde r sectio n 504 . Eve n i f

applie di n som e form , th e Buckhanno n tes t

shoul dno t

b e extende dt o exclud e volimtary dismissal s sanctione db y ajudge' s orde r o f dismissa l wit h prejudice . Firstiy , eve n thoug h som e court s hav e suggeste dtha t th e "judicia l sanction " elemen t o f th e Buckhanno n tes t

require s an exercis e o f

judicia l discretio n o r continuin g judicia l supervision , thes e case s di dno t involv e EAJ A application s unde r sectio n 504;'^ ^ an di t

ha s no t bee n establishe dtha t

ajudge' s dismissa l wit h prejudic e unde r 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.21 5 doe s not

constitut e judiciall y sanctione drelie f Unde r § 556(c ) o f

th e Adminisfrativ e Procedur e Ac t

("APA") , th e adminisfrativ e la w judg e ha s th e powe r t o "rul e o n offer s o f

proo f an dreceiv e relevan t

evidenc e [ § 556(c)(3)] , "regulat e th e cours e o f th e hearing " [ § 556(c)(5)] , "hol dconference s for

th e settlemen t

o r simplificatio n o f

th e issue s b y consen t

o f th e parties " [ § 556(c)(6)] , "dispos e o f

procedura l requests " [ § 556(c)(9)] , "mak e o r recommen ddecisions " [ § 556(c)(10)] , an d"tak e othe r actio n authorize db y agenc y rul e consisten t wit h thi s subchapter " [ §

'^ * Se e id . at

6 (citin g 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.21 5 ("i f a n agenc y attorne y withdraw s th e complaint.. . th e administrativ e la w judg e shal l dismis s th e proceeding s imde r thi s subpar t

with prejudice")) . Thoug h th e administrativ e la w judg e dismisse dth e Complain t

pursuan t t o § 13.215 , i t

doe s no t necessaril y follo w tha t

h e exercise dn o discretio n i n doin g so . Se e Touris t

Enterpris e Corp . "ORBIS, " CA B Docke t 27914 , Recommende dDecision , date dSeptembe r 23 , 1977 , p . 15 , n . 9 , adopted . Orde r 78-5-11 , p . 2 ; Woodbur y Hors e Transportation , FHW A Docke t Rl-88-1 , Orde r serve dJun e 13 , 1989 , p . 6 , n . 3 , remande do n othe r grounds . Orde r

date dSeptembe r

25 , 1989 ; America n Airlines , FA A Docke t

CP91SW0142, Orde r

serve dAugus t

21 , 1991 , p . 2 , n . 1 ; USAir , Inc. , FA A Docke t CP90NE0359 , Orde r serve dSeptembe r

30 , 1991 , p . 3 , n . 4 ; Vincent J . Medel , FA A Docke t

CP91SO0180 , Orde r

date dOctobe r

9 , 1992 , p . 16 , n . 16 , aff

dinpart , rev' dinpart , FA A Orde r 93-1 3 (Marc h 25 , 1993) ; Matte r o f Thoma s Farrell , CFT C Docke t 92-22 , Orde r

date dNovembe r

24,1992 , p . 3 , n . 8 . '' ^ See , e.g. . Highway Equip . Co . v . FECO , Ltd. , 46 9 F.3 d102 7 (Fed . Cir . 2006 ) (wher e plaintif f voluntaril y withdre w it s complain t

unde r th e Federa l Rule s o f

Civi l Procedur e an dth e tria l cour t the n dismisse di t

with prejudice , th e Court

o f Appeal s foun d"judicia l sanction " becaus e th e Federa l Rule s o f Civi l Procedur e gav e di e tria l court discretio n ove r

whethe r t o dismis s di e complain t with prejudice) ; Richard s v . DBS , 31 7 F.3 d1080 , 108 8 (9th Cir . 2003 ) ( asettlemen t

betwee n th e partie s wen t beyon da"purel y privat e settlemen t agreement " becaus e th e court incorporate dth e term s o f

th e settlemen t

agreemen t

int o an orde r

an dretaine djurisdictio n ove r th e case) . -19

-557(c)(ll)] ; an dan agenc y i s withou t authorit y t o withhol dthos e power s fromadminisfrativ e la w judge s actin g imde r

th e APA.'^ * I n fact , unde r th e regulations , th e proceedin g befor e th e adminisfrativ e law judg e coul dnot b e dismisse dwithou t

th e judge' s issuanc e o f adismissa l order ; an di n issuin g adismissa l orde r wit h prejudice , th e judg e exercise dpower s enimierate di n th e AP A an dcontemplate db y th e regulations . Consequently , eve n {{Buckhanno n wer e rea dt o requfr e judicia l sanctio n unde r

sectio n 504 , th e Dismissa l Orde r shoul db e deeme dt o constitut e judiciall y sanctione drelief , whic h change dth e relationshi p o f th e partie s an dbarre dfurther proceeding s agains t

Empire . Th e rul e o f

la w propose db y th e FA A woul d"erect[ ] aprocedura l ba r t o th e recovery o f attomey' s fee s unde r

th e EAJ A wheneve r

th e [agency ] voluntaril y withdraw s it s cas e prio r t o a hearing,"'^ ^ eve n whe n th e agency' s positio n i s «itirel y unjuistifie dan dth e defendant ha s incurre dattomey' s fee s i n protectin g itsel f I t woul dno t

onl y "close[ ] th e doo r

t o relie f o n Empir e i n th e presen t

case , bu t als o "quit e possibl y o n himdred s - i f not thousand s - o f

similarly

situate dapplicant s t o come."'^ ° Accordingly , w e wil l not adop t arul e tha t

woul ds o clearl y fiiisfrate Congress' s inten t i n enactin g EAJA . FA A Precedent s Eve n afte r Buckhannon , adminisfrativ e la w judge s hav e hel di n fina l decision s fo

r th e Adminisfrato r

tha t th e FAA' s decisio n t o YQlutttajril y withdra w it s con^)lain t

can for mth e basi s

'^ ^ ATTORNE

Y GENERAL'

S MANUA L O N TH E ADI^HNKTRAITV

E PROCEDUR

E AC T 74 , reprinte

din, FEDERA L ADMINISTRATIV

E PROCEDUR

E SOURCHE^ K

14 0 (1985) : Th e quote dlanguag e [o f § 556(c ) o f th e APA } autoai^c&U

y vest s i n hearin g officer s th e ((numerate dpower s t o th e exten t tha t suc h power s havft'beea ' give n t o th e agenc y itsel f i.e. , 'withi n it s powers. ' Inothe

r words , no t onl y are^emtD^dra^power s thus give n t o hearin g ofScer s b y sectio n [556(c) ] withou

t th e necessityfo

f Jest^lbftts s dgenc y delegation, bu

t tti t agenc y i s withou t powe r t o withhol dsuc h power s fiomitshoit^iSffioerg [no'vi ^ adininistrativ

e la w jtidges] . '^ ' Se e Application

s o f Turne r an dCoonan , 200 9 WL.2419616

» i t * H (Sumwalt

, Member , dissenting) . " " 5e e irf . a t * 9 (Sumwalt

, Member , dissenting) . -20 -for

a n EAJ A claim.^^ ' I n Star k Avionics , th e FA A allege dnin e violation s o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulations.'^ ^ Then , responden t filed amotio n for

decision , an dth e adminisfrativ e la w judg e grante di t with respec t

t o thre e o f

th e charges . Afterward , th e FA A voluntaril y withdre w th e remainde r o f it s complain t

pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.215,'^' ' jus t a s th e FA A di dhere . Responden t

the n fileda

n EAJ A application. Th e judg e hel dtha t "voluntar y dismissa l ma y for m th e basi s fo

r a n EAJ A claim."'^ ^ Therefore , eve n thoug h th e FA A ha dvoluntaril y withdraw n som e o f it s charges , th e judg e hel dtha t responden t

was th e "prevailin g party " o n al l o f th e allege dviolations.'^ ^ W e conclud e tha t suc h awithdrawa l o f

an vmwarrante dcomplain t agains t a responden t

establishe s th e responden t a s a"prevailin g party " an dshoul dsupport a n EAJ A clai m unde r sectio n 504 . I n Wester n Air , th e FA A voluntaril y withdre w it s notic e o f clai magains t

respondent , bu t th e adminisfrativ e la w judg e decide dtha t responden t

was not a"prevailin g party " withi n th e meanin g o f

EAJA , becaus e th e reaso n for th e withdrawa l wa s unknown : Th e Applicant' s paper s assum e tha t i t was th e "prevailin g party " for EAJ A purpose s becaus e th e FAA' s clai magains t i t was withdrawn . Tha t

i s an unwarrante dassxmiption . Th e questio n i t mus t answe r is : Wh v was th e clai m withdrawn ? Th e recor do f th e underlyin g proceeding , o n whic h adecisio n unde r th e EAJ A mus t

b e based , 1 4 C.F.R . § 14.04(a) , i s silen t o n thi s point . Absen t

suc h proof , I amrequfre dt o conclud e tha t th e Applican t

doe s no t qualif y a s a prevailin g party . *^

^

" ' See Star

k Avionics . Inc. , Docke

t No . FAA-2006-26329,200 6 W L 3530425 , a

t * 3 (Novembe

r 29,2006 ) (Benkin , A.L.J.) ; Wester

n Ai r Express . Inc. , Docke

t No . FAA-2009-0280,200 9 W L 1765808 , a

t * 2 (Jun e 19,2009 ) (Benkin , A.L.J.) ; Gree

n Aviatio n Management . Co. , Docke t No . FAA-2007-26989,200 8 W L 441796 , a

t * 2 (Januar

y 16 , 2008 ) (Benkin , A.L.J.) . Tha t conclusio n als o accord s wit h the legislativ e histor

y of sectio n 504 . See H.R . Rep . 99

- 120(1 ) (1985 ) reprinte di

n 198 5 U.S.C.C.A.N . 132,141-42 : "Whe n tiie cas e i s concededon th e merits , droppedby th e agency , o

r otherwis e settie don term s favorable to the privat e part y befor e an y of the merit s ar

e heard , die cour

t (o r adjudicativ

e officer ) will again loo k

to th e recor

din flie cas e to determin

e whethe r the positio n o

f the governmen t wa s substantially justified. " '^^StarkAvionics . Inc. , 200 6 W L 3530425 , a

t +1 . "*Mat*2 . "^W.at*3 . '''I d ' " Wester n Ai r Express . Inc. , 200 9 W

L 1765808 , a

t *2 . -21

-I n th e presen t case , th e FA A admitte dtha t i t withdre w it s Complain t

becaus e i t mistakenl y too k

actio n agains t

th e wron g party . Therefore , eve n unde r th e mor e restrictiv e approac h i n Wester

n Air , th e recor dprovide s an explanatio n for th e agency' s withdrawa l and , support s afinding tha t

Empir e wa s th e "prevwlin g party " i n th e underlyin g action . W e conclud e fo r th e reason s se t

fort h above tha t

Empir e was th e "prevailin g party " withi n th e meanin g o f sectio n 50 4 an dth e FAA' s regulations .

TH E REASONABLENES S OJ " TH E AWAR D SOUGH T Th e FA A ha s no t

contende dtha t

th e amoun t

o f th e awar dsough t

b y Empfr e i s imreasonabl e tmde r

th e statut e an dimplementin g regulations . Accordin g t o Empfre , thi s issu e therefor e nee dno t

b e considered.'^ ^ However , th e regulation s indicat e tha t th e adminisfrativ e law judg e shoul dmak e a

n independen t

determinatio n regardin g th e reasonablraies s o f an y award.'^ ^ Havin g considere dal l o f th e relevan t

faptoi s specifie di n th e regulations , w e conclud e tha t th e amoun t

o f th e awar dsough t

b y Empfre is^propriat e excep t i n s o fa r a s i t exceed s th e amoun t permitte dunde r

th e statut e an dregulations , an dconsequentl y w e reduc e i t accordingly . Empir e seek s a

n awar do f

$4,980 , consistin g o f

$4,44 0 i n attomey' s fees , $51 0 i n paralega l fees , an d$3 0 i n lega l assistan t fees.''* ® Th e $4,44 0 i n attomey' s fee s wa s calculate d base do n th e 14. 8 hotir s tha t Empire' s counse l worke do n th e matter , multiplie db y arat e o f $30 0

" ' Applicant' s Repl

y t o Agency' s Response, supr

anot e 25 , * t 1-2 . " ' 1 4 C.F.R . § 14.05(c ) provide s that , "i n determinin

g tbe^wasonftblei^gs

s o f th e fe e sough t fo r a n attorney, agent

, o r exper t witiiess , th e A U o r adjudicativ e ofiSce r shaj l considfl

s .th e fpUo^wng ; (1 ) I f th e attorney , agent

, o r witnes s i s i

n privat e practice , hi s o

r he r customar y fe e fo r simil e s^j^ceStCf.i

f a[^9nq>loyj9^

^ applicant

, th e fiiUy alldcate

d cos t o f th e services ; (2

) Th e prevailin g rat e fo r sitaUar,8ervicesi^&

e communit

y i n \^4iid i tiie attorney , agen

^ o r witiies s ordinaril

y perform s services ; (3 ) Th

e tim e aptualj y fp^^j ^ iix

i rq)resentatio

n o f th e applicant ; (4

) Th e tim e reasonabl y spen t i n ligh t o f th e difficult y o r conqilexi ^ o

f 1 & ^ifue p mth o proceeding ; an

d(5 ) Suc h othe r &ctor s a s ma y bea r o n th e valu e o f th e services provided. " Additionally , sectio n 14.05(a ) provides tha

t "award s wil l b o base d o n rates customaril

y charge db y person s engage di n th e busines s o

f actin g a s attorneys , ageots

^ an dexper t witoesses , eve n i f th e service s wer e mad e availabl e withou t charg e o r a t areduce drat e t o th e applicant. " Sectio

n 14.05(b ) provide s tha t "n o awar dfo r th e fe e o f a n attorne y o r agen t lude r thi s par t ma y excee d$ 12 5 pe r hour , o r sucl f rat e a s prescribe db y 5 U.S.C . 504. " Finally , sectio n 14.05(e ) provides fliat

"fees ma y b e awarde

donl y fo r wor k performe d afte r th e issuanc e o f acomplaint. " '* " Application

, supr anot e 14, a t 7 . -22 -pe r

hour.'"^ ' However , unde r 5 U.S.C . § 504(b)(1)(A) , "attorne y o r agen t fee s shal l no t

b e awarde di n exces s o f

$12 5 pe r hou r unles s th e agenc y determine s b y regulatio n tha t a n increas e i n th e cos t

o f livin g o r aspecia l facto r

.. . justifie s ahighe r

fee. " Unde r

1 4 C.F.R . § 14.05(b), , "n o awar dfor

th e fe e o f

an attorne y o r

agen t unde r thi s par t ma y excee d$ 12 5 pe r

hour , o r suc h rat e a s prescribe db y 5 U.S.C . 504. " Becaus e th e agenc y ha s not determine db y regulatio n tha t permittin g EAJ A applicant s t o recove r ahighe r hourl y rat e for

attomey' s fee s i s justified , th e amoun t o f attomey' s fee s tha t

Empir e ca n recove r

i s cappe dat

arat e o f $12 5 pe r hour.'"* ^ Base do n arat e o f

$12 5 pe r hour,^"* ^ Empir e i s entitle dt o recove r $1,85 0 i n attomey' s fees . Whe n th e paralega l an dlega l assistan t fee s ar e included , Empir e i s entitle dt o atota l award o f $2,390 . CONCLUSIO N Accordingly , w e conclud e tha t Empire' s Applicatio n vinde r EAJ A shoul db e grante dan d awardEmpir e $2,39 0 i n attomey' s fee s an dexpenses . S O ORDERED .

T%jfi e A . Yod i Chie f Adminisfrativ e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis t I d 14 1 '* ^ Se e Lis aBowden , Docke

t No . FAA-2004-24154,200 6 W L 1403756 , a

t *5 , n. 7 (Ma

y 16 , 2006 ) (Benkin , A.L.J. ) (althoug h "the norma

l hourly billin g rate fo

r [th e applicant's ] counse

l during th e perio drangedbetwee n $38 0 an d $495, " th e regulation s nonetheles s impos e aca p of "$12 5 pe r hour") . '* ' I find tha

t arat e of $12 5 pe r hou r i s reasonabl e in ligh

t of th e requirement s of

1 4 C.F.R . § 14.05 . Se

e supranot

e 139 . 2 3

### Note : Pursuan t t o th e FA A Rule s o f Practice , 1 4 C.F.R . § 14 . 2 8 an d§ 13.233 , apart y tha t wishe s t o appea l thi s decisio n mus t fil e awritte n Notic e o

f Appea l wit

h th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration . Th e notic e mus t b e filedi n th e FA

A Hearin g Docke t

usin g th e appropriat e addres s liste di n § 13.210(a) . Th e ntitie e mus t b e fQe dn o late r tha n te n (10 ) day s afte r th e servic e dat e indicate do n thi s decision , an di t mus t als o b e serve do n th e opposin g party . Filin g anotic e o f appea l wi^Mbf

e Judg e i s no t

sufficient . I f

neithe r tiie applican t no r th e FAA' s counse l seek s revie w withi n thirt y (30 ) day s afte r th e decisio n i s issued , i t become s final.

•24 -FA A Docke t No . CP10EA000 8 (Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Act ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L & ON E COP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000^'' ^

ON E COP Y Gregor y S . Winton , Applicant' s Counse l On e Researc h Court , Suit e 45 0 Rockville , M D 2085 0 TEL : 301-294-855 0 FAX : 301-294-252 5 Zachar y M . Berman , Agency' s Counse l Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counse l Federa l Aviatio n Adminisfratio n 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 TEL : 718-553-325 8 FAX : 718-995-569 9 Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A . Yoder , Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Offic e o f Hearings , M-20 , Roo mE l 2-32 0 120 0 New Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-214 2 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' ^ Servic e wa

s b y U.S . Mail . For

servic e in perso n o

r by expedite dcourier , us e th e followin g address : Federa

l Aviation Administration , 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin

g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 .

-25

-