Ellis & Eastern Company v. Secretary of Labor (ALJ decision, February 4, 2016)

Ellis & Eastern Company v. Secretary of Labor (FMSHRC EAJA 2015-0003): Fees awarded for litigating fee application

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
EAJA 2015-0003
Decided
February 4, 2016
Presiding judge
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-01

Apply this to your situation

This order from 2016 bound only the parties to this case; it isn't precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent say, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 2016
The MSHA standards may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Commission or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Final ALJ order, not Commission precedent
This order became final under the 40-day rule in 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1) because no later Commission review appears in the official index. It binds the parties but is not Commission precedent. The full text below is from the official FMSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FMSHRC release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

Ellis & Eastern had already received $21,450.96 under the Equal Access to Justice Act for fees and expenses in the underlying case. It then requested another $5,248.49 for the cost of successfully litigating the fee application itself. Judge L. Zane Gill held that the EAJA covers all phases of successful litigation and that denying compensation for fee litigation would dilute the original award. After reviewing counsel's itemized affidavit, the Judge found the time, expenses, and previously approved $200 hourly rate reasonable and ordered payment of the full requested amount.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard: None.
  • Outcome: The Secretary was ordered to pay Ellis & Eastern $5,248.49 in additional attorney fees and expenses.
  • Key point: A successful EAJA applicant may recover reasonable fees incurred to obtain the fee award itself.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY
AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

1331 PENNSYLVANIA
AVE., N.W., SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON, DC
20004-1710

TELEPHONE:
202-434-9958 / FAX: 202-434-9949

ELLIS
& EASTERN COMPANY,

Applicant,

v.

SECRETARY
OF LABOR, MINE

SAFETY
AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION,

Respondent.

EQUAL
ACCESS TO JUSTICE PROCEEDING

Docket
No. EAJA 2015-0003

Formerly
CENT 2015-0451-M

A.C.
No. 39-00008-351487 Z272

Mine:
Sioux Falls Quarry

ORDER
AWARDING ATTORNEY FEES AND EXPENSES

FOR
THE EAJA APPLICATION

On
December 21, 2015, I granted Ellis & Eastern Company’s (“E&E”) Application for attorney fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) in the amount of $21,450.96, at a rate of $200.00 per hour, for litigation expenses for the original action. E&E now requests an award in the amount of $5,248.49 for attorney fees and expenses incurred while litigating the EAJA application itself. For the reasons stated below, E&E’s application is GRANTED.

The
Supreme Court found in Comm'r, I.N.S. v. Jean
that “Congress intended the EAJA to cover the cost of all phases of successful civil litigation addressed by the statute.” 496 U.S. 154, 166 (1990). Indeed, the Court reasoned that “[a]ny given civil action can have numerous phases. While the parties' postures on individual matters may be more or less justified, the EAJA—like other fee-shifting statutes—favors treating a case as an inclusive whole, rather than as atomized line-items.” Id. at 161-62; See, e.g., Sullivan v. Hudson, 490 U.S. 877, 888, 109 S.Ct. 2248, 2256, 104 L.Ed.2d 941 (1989) (where administrative proceedings are “necessary to the attainment of the results Congress sought to promote by providing for fees, they should be considered part and parcel of the action for which fees may be awarded”). Cf. Gagne v. Maher, 594 F.2d 336, 344 (CA2 1979) (“[D]enying attorneys' fees for time spent in obtaining them would ‘dilute the value of a fees award by forcing attorneys into extensive, uncompensated litigation in order to gain any fees' ” under 42 U.S.C. § 1988), aff'd on other grounds, 448 U.S. 122 (1980). Therefore, in addition to awarding attorney fees and expenses for the original action, it is appropriate to also award attorney fees and expenses for litigating the EAJA application itself.

I
reviewed the Affidavit of Jeffrey Sar and Exhibit A attached to the Application, which itemizes the time Attorney Sar spent litigating the EAJA Application, and I find that the time spent was reasonable given the issues before the court, and I find that the accompanying expenses reasonable as well. The rate of $200.00 per hour was approved in the EAJA decision published on December 21, 2015, and is therefore justified. As such, E&E is entitled to a total of $5,248.49 in attorney fees and expenses, as requested.

WHEREFORE, it is ORDERED that the Secretary of Labor pay a total of $5,248.49 in attorney fees and expenses to E&E within 30 days of this order.

/s/ L. Zane Gill

L. Zane Gill

Administrative Law Judge

Distribution:

Daniel McIntyre, Esq., U.S.
Dept. of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, 1244 Speer Blvd., Suite 216, Denver, CO 80204

Jeffrey Sar, Esq., Baron,
Sar, Goodwin, Gill & Lohr, 750 Pierce Street, P.O. Box 717, Sioux City, IA 51102

What applies to your situation today?

This order bound one employer. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent against your facts, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace