Robinson v. O'Rourke

7 Citing cases

  1. Winters v. Wilkie

    898 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 2 times

    The EAJA applicant bears the burden of proving he or she is a prevailing party. Robinson v. O’Rourke , 891 F.3d 976, 980 (Fed. Cir. 2018).EAJA provides in relevant part:

  2. Perciavalle v. McDonough

    101 F.4th 829 (Fed. Cir. 2024)

    " '[W]here adoption of a particular legal standard dictates the outcome of a case based on undisputed facts, we may address that issue as a question of law.' " Kelly v. Nicholson, 463 F.3d 1349, 1352-53 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting Halpern v. Principi, 384 F.3d 1297, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see Sellers v. Wilkie, 965 F.3d 1328, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Robinson v. O'Rourke, 891 F.3d 976, 979 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Comer v. Peake, 552 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Groves v. Peake, 524 F.3d 1306, 1309-10 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Secretary has not shown that the facts that are material under the correct standard are in dispute, and on those facts, the post-Act version of the fee statute applies.

  3. Cavaciuti v. McDonough

    75 F.4th 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2023)   Cited 5 times

    The EAJA applicant "carries the burden of proving he is a prevailing party." Robinson v. O'Rourke, 891 F.3d 976, 980 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

  4. Beach Blitz Co. v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.

    13 F.4th 1289 (11th Cir. 2021)   Cited 39 times
    Holding that even when the district court dismissed claims without prejudice, its order granting a Rule 12(b) motion carried “judicial imprimatur” and could convey prevailing party status

    CRST highlighted "the asymmetry in the parties’ litigation objectives, which affects the showing that each party must make to achieve prevailing-party status" and held that a defendant "prevails ‘whenever the plaintiff's challenge is rebuffed, irrespective of the precise reason for the court's decision.’ " Robinson v. O'Rourke, 891 F.3d 976, 982 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting CRST, 136 S. Ct. at 1651 ); see also B.E. Tech., L.L.C. v. Facebook, Inc., 940 F.3d 675, 679 (Fed. Cir. 2019), cert denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 618, 208 L.Ed.2d 227 (2020) ("Facebook obtained the outcome it sought via the mootness dismissal; it rebuffed B.E.’s attempt to alter the parties’ legal relationship in an infringement suit .... CRST explains that a defendant, like Facebook, can prevail by ‘rebuffing’ plaintiff's claim, irrespective of the reason for the court's decision."). Of course, in order to confer prevailing party status, the rejection of the plaintiff's attempt to alter the parties’ legal relationship "must be marked by ‘judicial imprimatur.’ " CRST, 136 S. Ct. at 1646 (citation omitted).

  5. Sellers v. Wilkie

    965 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that a veteran's claim must identify, "at least at a high level of generality," the sickness, disease, or injuries for which compensation is sought and that 38 C.F.R. § 3.159, that is, the VA's duty to assist in developing claims, only applies once the VA "comprehends the current condition [up]on which the claim is based"

    For that reason, it is appropriate for this court to hold that Mr. Sellers is not entitled to an earlier effective date based on his 1996 formal claim. See Robinson v. O'Rourke , 891 F.3d 976, 979 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("[W]here adoption of a particular legal standard dictates the outcome of a case based on undisputed facts, we may address that issue as a question of law.") (quoting Kelly v. Nicholson , 463 F.3d 1349, 1352-53 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ); Reeves v. Shinseki , 682 F.3d 988, 992 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ; Comer v. Peake , 552 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ; Groves v. Peake , 524 F.3d 1306, 1309-10 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (reversing the Veterans Court and remanding for entry of judgment where application of correct law dictates outcome of a veteran's claim). CONCLUSION

  6. Blair v. Alstom Transp., Inc.

    16 Civ. 3391 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2020)

    Under § 285, "a favorable judgment on the merits is not necessary for a defendant to be deemed a prevailing party for purposes of statutory fee-shifting." Raniere v. Microsoft Corp., 887 F.3d 1298, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2018); cf. CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC, 136 S. Ct. 1642, 1646, 1651 (2016) (holding the same as to a similarly worded provision of Title VII and noting that "Congress has included the term 'prevailing party' in various fee-shifting statutes, and it has been the Court's approach to interpret the term in a consistent manner"); see also Robinson v. O'Rourke, 891 F.3d 976, 981-82 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Although a "defendant, of course, might prefer a judgment vindicating its position regarding the substantive merits of the plaintiff's allegations," the Supreme Court has held that "[t]he defendant has . . . fulfilled its primary objective whenever the plaintiff's challenge is rebuffed, irrespective of the precise reason for the court's decision.

  7. Pirri v. Cheek

    19 Civ. 180 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. May. 18, 2020)   Cited 6 times
    Awarding fees where "in the Court's more than eight-and-one-half years on the bench, [plaintiff's] filings stand apart from those of other failed civil plaintiffs for the sheer lack of colorable factual (or legal support); for their tendentious, bizarre, non-responsive and caustically accusatory arguments; and for their disregard for, and selective presentation of, evidence"

    Under § 285, "a favorable judgment on the merits is not necessary for a defendant to be deemed a prevailing party for purposes of statutory fee-shifting." Raniere v. Microsoft Corp., 887 F.3d 1298, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2018); cf. CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC, 136 S. Ct. 1642, 1646, 1651 (2016) (reaching the same holding as to a similarly worded provision of Title VII and noting that "Congress has included the term 'prevailing party' in various fee-shifting statutes, and it has been the [Supreme] Court's approach to interpret the term in a consistent manner"); see also Robinson v. O'Rourke, 891 F.3d 976, 981-82 (Fed. Cir. 2018). While a "defendant of course, might prefer a judgment vindicating its position regarding the substantive merits of the plaintiff's allegations," the Supreme Court has held that "[t]he defendant has . . . fulfilled its primary objective whenever the plaintiff's challenge is rebuffed, irrespective of the precise reason for the court's decision.