There was a problem locating the requested document.
Page 1 Case 3:05-cv-00243-RRB Document9 _ Filed 12/23/2005 Page 1 of6
FILED
DEC 2 3 2005
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT GF ALASKA
By eS Nenut
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
POORMAN ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
Case No. A0Q5-0243 CV (RRB)
vs.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’ S
et al., MOTION FOR COSTS AND FEES
Defendants.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Poorman Enterprises, Inc. (“Poorman”) moves for
costs and fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act,
28 U.S.C. § 2412 (‘“EAJA”), Fed. R. Civ. P. 54, and Local Federal
Civil Rules 54.1 and 54.3.1 Poorman argues that it is entitled to
costs and fees because it was a prevailing party under the catalyst
' Clerk’s Docket No. 6
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COSTS AND FEES - 1
AQ5-0243 CV (RRB)Page 2 Case 3:05-cv-00243-RRB Document9 _ Filed 12/23/2005 Page 2of6
theory.* The Government opposes on a number of grounds, including
that Poorman was not a prevailing party.?
Because the Court concludes that Poorman was not a
prevailing party, Poorman’s Motion is DENIED.
II. FACTS
Poorman brought suit in federal court challenging the
decision of an administrative law judge to deny Poorman’s motion
for a continuance of an administrative hearing on the validity of
Poorman’s mining claims.* After multiple continuances concerning
the date of this hearing, the administrative law judge scheduled
the hearing for September 14, 2005.° Poorman then moved for a
ninety day continuance, and the Government opposed such a
continuance.® The administrative law judge denied the continuance,
but rescheduled the hearing for October 25, 2005.’ Poorman again
requested a full ninety day continuance, and it was again denied.?®
@ Id. at 4-5.
3 Clerk’s Docket No. 7 at 3-4.
4 Clerk’s Docket No. 1.
> Clerk’s Docket No. 7 at Ex. 1 at 1.
6 Id.
7 Id. at Ex. 3.
8 Td. at Ex. 2.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COSTS AND FEES - 2
A05-0243 CV (RRB)Page 3 Case 3:05-cv-00243-RRB Document9 _ Filed 12/23/2005 Page 3of6
Poorman proceeded to file suit in this court seeking
injunctive and declarative relief to stop the hearing from
proceeding as. scheduled.?® After reviewing this action, the
administrative law judge reversed his decision and rescheduled the
hearing for December 13, 2005.!° Poorman filed a Notice of
Dismissal of his complaint in this court, and now moves for the
fees and costs involved in filing the complaint.
IIIT. DISCUSSION
For the court to award attorney’s fees and costs pursuant
to the EAJA, it must be shown that: (1) the plaintiff is the
prevailing party; (2) the government has not met its burden of
showing that its positions were substantially justified or that
special circumstances make an award unjust; and (3) the requested
attorney’s fees and costs are reasonable." Here, Poorman fails
under the first prong.
Poorman argues that it is a prevailing party under the
catalyst theory; that there is “a clear, causal relationship
between the litigation brought and the practical outcome
®° Clerk’s Docket No. 1.
10 Clerk’s Docket No. 7 at Ex. 8.
it 28 «=UWLS.C. § 2412(d) (1) (A); Perez-Arellano v. Smith, 279
F.3d 791, 793 (9th Cir. 2002).
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COSTS AND FEES - 3
A05-0243 CV (RRB)Page 4 Case 3:05-cv-00243-RRB Document9 _ Filed 12/23/2005 Page4of6
realized.”'* However, the Supreme Court rejected such a theory in
a decision interpreting statutes other than the EAJA.'? In 2002,
the Ninth Circuit held that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of
“prevailing party” under other federal statutes also applied to the
EFAJA.™ The Ninth Circuit stated, “We therefore hold that a
‘prevailing party’ under the EAJA must be one who has gained by
judgment or consent decree a ‘material alteration of the legal
relationship of the parties.’”'° Poorman’s argument that this
holding was limited to the facts of the case is not well-taken.
The Court is unaware of any subsequent case reading the holding in
Perez-Arellano as limited.
Here, there was no judgment or consent decree issued, and
nothing materially altered the legal relationship of the parties.
In fact, Poorman voluntarily dismissed its case. Although Poorman
obtained its goal of a continuance, there was no enforceable
judgment on the merits nor any enforceable settlement agreement.'*®
Thus, Poorman is not a prevailing party and is not entitled to any
EAJA fees.
12 Clerk's Docket No. 6.
13° Buckhannon Bd. and Care Home v. West Virginia Dep’t of
Health and Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001).
14 Perez-Arellano, 279 F.3d at 794.
19 Td.
1% See id. at 795.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COSTS AND FEES - 4
A05-0243 CV (RRB)Page 5 Case 3:05-cv-00243-RRB Document9 _ Filed 12/23/2005 Page 5of6
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.
ENTERED this 22°¢ day of December, 2005.
{[s/
RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COSTS AND FEES - 5
A05-0243 CV (RRB)Page 6 Case 3:05-cv-00243-RRB Document9 _ Filed 12/23/2005 Page 6of6
For the foreqoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED.
ENTERED this DS aay of December, 2005.
<< 4
RALPA\R. BRTSTLING
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COSTS AND FRES - 5
AOS-0243 CV (RRB)
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 3:05-cv-00243-RRB Document9 _ Filed 12/23/2005 Page 1 of6
FILED
DEC 2 3 2005
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT GF ALASKA
By eS Nenut
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
POORMAN ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
Case No. A0Q5-0243 CV (RRB)
vs.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’ S
et al., MOTION FOR COSTS AND FEES
Defendants.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Poorman Enterprises, Inc. (“Poorman”) moves for
costs and fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act,
28 U.S.C. § 2412 (‘“EAJA”), Fed. R. Civ. P. 54, and Local Federal
Civil Rules 54.1 and 54.3.1 Poorman argues that it is entitled to
costs and fees because it was a prevailing party under the catalyst
' Clerk’s Docket No. 6
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COSTS AND FEES - 1
AQ5-0243 CV (RRB)
PDF Page 3
Case 3:05-cv-00243-RRB Document9 _ Filed 12/23/2005 Page 2of6
theory.* The Government opposes on a number of grounds, including
that Poorman was not a prevailing party.?
Because the Court concludes that Poorman was not a
prevailing party, Poorman’s Motion is DENIED.
II. FACTS
Poorman brought suit in federal court challenging the
decision of an administrative law judge to deny Poorman’s motion
for a continuance of an administrative hearing on the validity of
Poorman’s mining claims.* After multiple continuances concerning
the date of this hearing, the administrative law judge scheduled
the hearing for September 14, 2005.° Poorman then moved for a
ninety day continuance, and the Government opposed such a
continuance.® The administrative law judge denied the continuance,
but rescheduled the hearing for October 25, 2005.’ Poorman again
requested a full ninety day continuance, and it was again denied.?®
@ Id. at 4-5.
3 Clerk’s Docket No. 7 at 3-4.
4 Clerk’s Docket No. 1.
> Clerk’s Docket No. 7 at Ex. 1 at 1.
6 Id.
7 Id. at Ex. 3.
8 Td. at Ex. 2.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COSTS AND FEES - 2
A05-0243 CV (RRB)
PDF Page 4
Case 3:05-cv-00243-RRB Document9 _ Filed 12/23/2005 Page 3of6
Poorman proceeded to file suit in this court seeking
injunctive and declarative relief to stop the hearing from
proceeding as. scheduled.?® After reviewing this action, the
administrative law judge reversed his decision and rescheduled the
hearing for December 13, 2005.!° Poorman filed a Notice of
Dismissal of his complaint in this court, and now moves for the
fees and costs involved in filing the complaint.
IIIT. DISCUSSION
For the court to award attorney’s fees and costs pursuant
to the EAJA, it must be shown that: (1) the plaintiff is the
prevailing party; (2) the government has not met its burden of
showing that its positions were substantially justified or that
special circumstances make an award unjust; and (3) the requested
attorney’s fees and costs are reasonable." Here, Poorman fails
under the first prong.
Poorman argues that it is a prevailing party under the
catalyst theory; that there is “a clear, causal relationship
between the litigation brought and the practical outcome
®° Clerk’s Docket No. 1.
10 Clerk’s Docket No. 7 at Ex. 8.
it 28 «=UWLS.C. § 2412(d) (1) (A); Perez-Arellano v. Smith, 279
F.3d 791, 793 (9th Cir. 2002).
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COSTS AND FEES - 3
A05-0243 CV (RRB)
PDF Page 5
Case 3:05-cv-00243-RRB Document9 _ Filed 12/23/2005 Page4of6
realized.”'* However, the Supreme Court rejected such a theory in
a decision interpreting statutes other than the EAJA.'? In 2002,
the Ninth Circuit held that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of
“prevailing party” under other federal statutes also applied to the
EFAJA.™ The Ninth Circuit stated, “We therefore hold that a
‘prevailing party’ under the EAJA must be one who has gained by
judgment or consent decree a ‘material alteration of the legal
relationship of the parties.’”'° Poorman’s argument that this
holding was limited to the facts of the case is not well-taken.
The Court is unaware of any subsequent case reading the holding in
Perez-Arellano as limited.
Here, there was no judgment or consent decree issued, and
nothing materially altered the legal relationship of the parties.
In fact, Poorman voluntarily dismissed its case. Although Poorman
obtained its goal of a continuance, there was no enforceable
judgment on the merits nor any enforceable settlement agreement.'*®
Thus, Poorman is not a prevailing party and is not entitled to any
EAJA fees.
12 Clerk's Docket No. 6.
13° Buckhannon Bd. and Care Home v. West Virginia Dep’t of
Health and Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001).
14 Perez-Arellano, 279 F.3d at 794.
19 Td.
1% See id. at 795.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COSTS AND FEES - 4
A05-0243 CV (RRB)
PDF Page 6
Case 3:05-cv-00243-RRB Document9 _ Filed 12/23/2005 Page 5of6
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.
ENTERED this 22°¢ day of December, 2005.
{[s/
RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COSTS AND FEES - 5
A05-0243 CV (RRB)
PDF Page 7
Case 3:05-cv-00243-RRB Document9 _ Filed 12/23/2005 Page 6of6
For the foreqoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED.
ENTERED this DS aay of December, 2005.
<< 4
RALPA\R. BRTSTLING
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COSTS AND FRES - 5
AOS-0243 CV (RRB)
Third party AI contribution in government documents
Possible
Document content is reproduced directly from government sources. Some filings in our database may themselves contain AI-generated content submitted by third parties to government agencies.
Back to 
