Hyatt v. Sullivan

No. C-C-83-655-M (W.D.N.C. May 23, 1994) ; Clearinghouse Number: 35159

Description

Court Extends Deadline for Filing EAJA Fee Petition Because of Unclear Time Limit and Plaintiffs’ Good-Faith Action

Abstract

Finding that the applicable time limit is unclear, plaintiffs have acted in good faith, and defendants were not prejudiced by the delay, the district court has extended the filing deadline for plaintiffs’ motion for attorney fees under the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b) and (d). The parties had recently settled this 11-year-old class action which challenged defendant Secretary of HHS’s failure to use the Fourth Circuit’s standard of pain in disability benefit petitions in North Carolina. Seeking an estimated $775,000 for six years of work on the case, plaintiffs moved for attorney fees under both sections 2412(b) and 2412(d) of the EAJA. Under section 2412(d)(1)(B), EAJA fee petitions must be filed within 30 days after the judgment has become final and nonappealable. Although plaintiffs filed the motion within the time limit established by section 2412(d)(1)(B), they did not meet the 14-day-after-entry-of-judgment deadline established by the recent amendments to Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In their motion, plaintiffs requested the court to interpret the effect of Rule 54 on the time limit for filing EAJA fee petitions. They noted that, although statutes containing their own deadline for fees are not subject to the time limit contained in Rule 54(d)(2)(B), the literal language of the EAJA statute could be interpreted to restrict the applicability of the time limit in its section 2412(d)(1)(B) to fees sought under section 2412(d), and not to petitions sought under section 2412(b). The time limit in Rule 54(d) would then appear to apply, by default, to fees sought under subsection (b). Plaintiffs argued that, if the court should find that Rule 54(d)(2)(B) applies to fees sought under EAJA section 2412(b), the court should enter an order waiving the 14-day time limit because Rule 54(d)(2)(B) gives the court discretion to extend the 14-day limit, uncertainty is generated by the rule and its possible application to this case, and plaintiffs reasonably believed that the time limit for filing the petition was controlled by the EAJA. Plaintiffs also argued that the purpose of requiring motions for fees to be filed within the 14-day period, as explained in the official commentary to the amendment to Rule 54, was inapplicable to the case. The court extended the deadline for filing for fees. Counsel notes that future EAJA applicants should be aware of this issue, particularly given the recent authority for market-rate fees under section 2412(b) provided by Hyatt v. Shalala, 6 F.3d 250 (4th Cir. 1993).

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Plaintiffs represented by Douglas Sea, Legal Services of Southern Piedmont, 1431 Elizabeth Ave., Charlotte, NC 28204, (704) 376-1600; Charles Sasser, John Wester.
Docket Date
1994-05-23 00:00:00+00:00

Files

No files available.

Filed under: