Opinion ID: 3168179
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Government Has Standing to Challenge the

Text: Claims Court’s Award of Attorney Fees Under the Common Fund Doctrine The Haggarts contend that the Government lacks standing to seek review of “any issues pertaining to [c]lass [c]ounsel’s recovery of attorney[] fees” because it lacks “any cognizable interests at stake that could support this [c]ourt’s jurisdiction to review those issues.” Haggart Br. 14 (citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)). In support of this argument, the Haggarts cite to the Claims Court decision in Geneva Rock Products, Inc. v. United States, in which the court determined that because “no class member has objected to the [attorney] 9 All parties agree that this court’s jurisdiction does not rest on the Government demonstrating standing because the Woodleys have standing to contest the settlement agreement and award of attorney fees under the common fund doctrine. Instead, the Haggarts contend that this court should not consider the arguments proffered by the Government because it lacks standing. HAGGART v. UNITED STATES 9 fee award and . . . neither the [G]overnment’s liability nor its susceptibility to damages is in any way contingent on, or affected by, the amount of attorney[] fees awarded apart from the statutory fee,” the Government cannot establish standing to challenge the contingent fee. 119 Fed. Cl. 581, 593 (2015) (citations omitted). Unlike the class members in Geneva Rock, here the Woodleys have objected to the attorney fee award. Also, the line of cases relied on by the Claims Court distinguish between the losing party’s ability to challenge attorney fees to be paid from a common fund as opposed to a statutory fee. See Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880, 905 n.57 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (“[W]here the prevailing party’s fees are paid by the loser pursuant to statute . . . the losing party . . . retains an interest in contesting the size of the fee. This is not the case in ‘common fund’ fee litigation.” (emphasis added)). The Government possesses an institutional interest in assuring that courts do not abrogate Congress’s intent by impermissibly substituting the common fund doctrine in place of a fee-shifting statute like the URA when awarding attorney fees. See Freeman v. Ryan, 408 F.2d 1204, 1206 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (“Where litigation involving federal programs comes to involve questions of attorney[] fees[,] the cognizant federal official has an interest in the fee award as well as the merits of the litigation even though, or assuming, the fee does not decrease funds in the Treasury.” (emphasis added)). Attorney fee awards are “one aspect of the interest of Government officials in the programs they administer, an interest that is not to be narrowly and technically confined so as to limit presentation to courts of issues they consider to have significance in terms of their overall responsibilities as public officials.” Id. Although we recognize the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause is not a program administered by the Government, when an inverse condemnation action under the Tucker Act alleging a Government taking results in 10 HAGGART v. UNITED STATES an award of compensation and a statute expressly mandates the Attorney General, in settling such actions, to “determine” and “allow” “such sum as will in the opinion of . . . the Attorney General reimburse [] plaintiff for . . . reasonable attorney . . . fees,” 42 U.S.C. § 4654(c), the Government retains an interest in defending the Attorney General’s determination that the URA fee constitutes the reasonable attorney fee. See Allen v. United States, 606 F.2d 432, 434 (4th Cir. 1979) (“[E]ven though fees [were] not assessed against the [Government][,] . . . the [G]overnment [retains] [an] interest in the propriety of fees which it is obliged to disburse.”). Because Congress intended the URA to assure that plaintiffs in inverse-condemnation actions obtain just compensation for their property taken by the Government by requiring that the Government pay plaintiffs’ reasonable attorney fees, see Florida Rock Industries v. United States, 9 Cl. Ct. 285, 291 (1985) (“The Act thus entitles a plaintiff to be made whole for expenses incurred in achieving victory”), the Government has an interest “in seeing that [the attorney fees] it owes to litigants are disbursed properly.” Allen, 606 F.2d at 434.