ILNews

Attorneys not entitled to fees after agency drops order

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Addressing for the first time what qualifies as a “prevailing party” under the Equal Access to Justice Act, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with several other appellate courts that have ruled on the issue.

In Edward Jeroski, doing business as USA Cleaning Service and Building Maintenance v. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission and U.S. Secretary of Labor, 11-3687, the Circuit Court was asked to review the denial by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Administration for attorney fees paid fighting an order imposed by the agency that janitors employed by USA Cleaning at the Essroc Cement Corp. cement plant in Logansport, Ind., undergo 24 hours of safety training. The agency forbade USA Cleaning to allow the janitors to reenter the plant until they completed the training.

Essroc stepped in and hired attorneys on behalf of USA Cleaning. Those attorneys racked up $22,000 in legal bills while contesting the order, arguing that the cement plant doesn’t constitute a mine and therefore isn’t subject to the order. The agency vacated the order, and the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission dismissed, without prejudice, USA Cleaning’s contest proceeding. The commission also denied attorney fees.

Judge Richard Posner authored the 12-page opinion, in which the 7th Circuit agreed with the Secretary of Labor that USA Cleaning was not a “prevailing party” in the aborted agency proceeding.

All eight federal appellate courts to have considered this issue have found that USA Cleaning would not be considered a “prevailing party” under the Equal Access to Justice Act. Although those cases have dealt with the section of the act on judicial adjudication, the judges found no reason to deviate from the rulings pertaining to an administrative adjudication, as is the case here.

“And while not all the decisions involve voluntary dismissals, all hold that a ‘prevailing party’ is a party that obtains relief which determines or affects its legal status, as would have happened in this case had the review commission, rather than dismissing the contest proceeding without prejudice, ruled that USA Cleaning’s employees were not ‘miners’ within the meaning of the mine-safety act and the regulations under it,” Posner wrote in dismissing the petition for review.

Posner also noted the court’s disapproval of USA Cleaning’s denunciation of the Secretary of Labor’s brief as “vitriolic.” The company’s reply brief is “bumptious, hyperbolic — even vitriolic — an angry Essroc speaking through Essroc’s lawyers. We realize there’s no love lost between mine operators and their federal regulators, but we expect the lawyers to be temperate,” the court concluded in denying the petition for review.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT