Opinion ID: 178849
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: fees under the equal access to justice act

Text: The district court appropriately denied ACT's EAJA claim for attorney's fees and costs based on the determination that ACT was not a prevailing party. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (permitting an award of fees and costs to a prevailing party where the government's position was not substantially justified). To be a prevailing party, a litigant must achieve a material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties[,] and the alteration must be judicially sanctioned. Carbonell v. INS, 429 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). ACT does not qualify as a prevailing party because its regulatory victory was the result of the government's voluntary behavior, not judicial action. See Perez-Arellano v. Smith, 279 F.3d 791, 794 (9th Cir.2002) ([A] `prevailing party' under the EAJA must be one who has gained [a material alteration] by judgment or consent decree.). We need not address whether the government's position was substantially justified. AFFIRMED.