Opinion ID: 403925
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Retroactive Application of the EAJA

Text: 8 The KKK was appealing this Court's denial of attorneys' fees when the EAJA became effective as law on October 1, 1981. At the outset, the question arises whether such an action on appeal is covered by the EAJA. 9 The implementation provision provides that the Act shall apply to any civil action that is pending on, or commenced on or after October 1, 1981. Section 208, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (West Supp.1981). 9 Absent any legislative history to the contrary, an action is pending so long as a party's right to appeal has not yet been exhausted or expired. United States For Heydt v. Citizens State Bank, 668 F.2d 444, 446 (8th Cir. 1982); Photo Data, Inc. v. Sawyer, 533 F.Supp. 348, 350-51 (D.D.C.1982); Berman v. Schweiker, 531 F.Supp. 1149 (N.D.Ill.1982). See also Perzinski v. Chevron Chemical Co., 503 F.2d 654, 657 (7th Cir. 1974); Williams v. State, 62 Cal.App.3d 960, 133 Cal.Rptr. 539 (1976); In re Estate of Stith, 45 Ill.2d 192, 258 N.E.2d 351, 353 (1970). The fact that a motion for attorneys' fees is the only matter pending before a court does not mean that court lacks jurisdiction or that the case is not pending. Buckton v. NCAA, 436 F.Supp. 1258, 1262-63 (D.Mass.1977). 10 Because the Klan's right to appeal had not expired or been exhausted, its action was pending on the effective date for the purposes of applying the Act.