Scarborough v. Principi

124 S. Ct. 1856 (2004) ; Clearinghouse Number: 54330

Description

Equal Access to Justice Act Fee Application May Be Amended After Filing Period Ends to Cure Failure to Allege That Government’s Position Was Not Substantially Justified, U.S. Supreme Court Rules

Abstract

A timely application for fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), may be amended, the U.S. Supreme Court held, after the thirty-day filing period runs to cure an initial failure to allege that the government’s position in the underlying litigation lacked substantial justification. Petitioner prevailed before the Court of Veterans Appeals in an action for disability benefits against respondent secretary of veterans affairs. Petitioner’s counsel filed a timely application for attorney fees and costs pursuant to Section 2412(d). The application failed to allege that the government’s position was not substantially justified. Secretary moved to dismiss the application on the ground that the Court of Veterans Appeals lacked jurisdiction. Petitioner’s counsel immediately filed an amended fee application adding the substantial justification allegation. In the interim, however, the thirty-day filing period expired. The Court of Veterans Appeals dismissed petitioner’s fee application, and the Federal Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded in light of Edelman v. Lynchburg College, 535 U.S. 106 (2002), which upheld an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulation allowing amendment of a timely filed employment discrimination charge to add the initially absent verification. On remand, the Federal Circuit distinguished Edelman and adhered to its initial decision. Reversing the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court found that the question of whether petitioner was time-barred by Section 2412(d)(1)(B) from gaining the fee award authorized by Section 2412(d)(1)(A) did not concern the federal courts’ subject-matter jurisdiction. Rather, the Court held that it concerned a mode of relief (costs including legal fees) ancillary to the judgment of a court that had plenary jurisdiction over the civil action in which the fee application was being made. The Court found that, unlike the Section 2412(d)(1)(B) prescriptions on what the applicant must show (e.g., the applicant’s prevailing party status, eligibility to receive an award, and the amount sought), the required “not substantially justified” allegation imposed no proof burden on the fee applicant but was simply an allegation or pleading requirement. A failure to make the allegation should not be fatal, the Court said, if who was applying for fees, from what judgment, and to which court was not in doubt.

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Docket Date
2004-05-03 00:00:00+00:00