Opinion ID: 2768883
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: IDEA’s EAJA Claim

Text: The EAJA provides that “a court may award fees and expenses of attorneys . . . to the prevailing party in any civil action brought by or against the United States or any agency or any official of the United States acting in his or her official capacity in any court having jurisdiction of 1 Because this conclusion is sufficient to affirm the CFC’s opinion, we decline to address IDEA’s remaining arguments. INNOVATION DEVELOPMENT v. US 7 such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b) (emphasis added). In Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992), the Supreme Court defined “prevailing party”: “a plaintiff ‘prevails’ when actual relief on the merits of his claim materially alters the legal relationship between the parties by modifying the defendant’s behavior in a way that directly benefits the plaintiff.” 506 U.S. at 111–12. We have generally adopted this meaning of prevailing party in “all cases in which Congress has authorized an award of fees to a ‘prevailing party.’” Singer v. Office of Senate Sergeant at Arms, 173 F.3d 837 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)). 2 In this case, the CFC correctly rejected IDEA’s claim for EAJA because IDEA was not a prevailing party entitled to recovery of attorney fees. IDEA did not receive an injunction and recovered no money damages. Therefore, IDEA did not receive any actual relief that “materially alters the legal relationship between the parties.” Farrar, 506 U.S. at 111–12. Because IDEA is not a prevailing party, we conclude that the CFC properly denied recovery of attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b).