Opinion ID: 185989
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appellees' Forfeiture Claim

Text: 22 Before addressing the merits of NSF's appeal, we must first consider whether NSF's claim that appellees are not prevailing parties under EAJA is properly before this court. Appellees contend that we should dismiss the appeal, because NSF never argued before the District Court that appellees were not prevailing parties. Br. of Appellees at 18-21. Thus, according to appellees, this claim has been forfeited. We disagree. 23 We need not dwell long on this issue, because NSF's reply brief to this court convincingly refutes appellees' claim: 24 [T]he issue of prevailing party status was raised by NSF below. Although NSF's opposition to plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees concentrated on the issue of substantial justification, the opposition preliminarily stated that [p]laintiffs are ... not `prevailing parties' for purposes of EAJA, and their claim fails on that basis alone. Def. NSF's Opp'n to Pls.' Mot. for Award of Atty's Fees and Costs at 3 (App. 279). NSF argued that the district court's April 6th ruling was not merged into any final judgment, and the `unconstitutional tax' issue was never litigated to finality, depriving it of the opportunity to exercise the right enjoyed by `non-prevailing' parties to appeal. Id. at 1 (App. 277). 25 NSF also subsequently filed a Notice of Filing with the district court, noting that Buckhannon `bears upon the construction of prevailing party for purposes of attorney fee-shifting statutes.' See Dis. Ct. Op. (Mar. 22, 2002) at 2 n.1 (App. 552). Indeed, the district court specifically addressed and decided the issue of prevailing party status in its opinion, holding that the preliminary injunction and summary judgment awarded to Plaintiffs certainly constitute a `judicial imprimatur, ' and there was nothing `voluntary' about Defendants' compelled compliance with such ordered relief. Ibid. 26 Reply Br. of Appellant at 7-8. 27 In short, the record is clear that NSF raised the prevailing party issue with the District Court, the District Court addressed the issue, and NSF preserved the issue in its appeal to this court. Accordingly, we reject the contention that NSF forfeited its right to challenge appellees' prevailing party status on appeal.