Starry Assocs., Inc. v. United States

8 Citing cases

  1. Robinson v. Wilkie

    No. 2020-1129 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2021)

    The response raised four arguments: (1) the application contained miscalculations; (2) Robinson was not entitled to a "special factor" adjustment under § 2412(d)(2)(A); (3) certain hours were unreasonably spent; and (4) certain expenses were not sufficiently supported. A few days later, on June 22, 2018, this court issued its decision in Starry Associates, Inc. v. United States, 892 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("Starry II"). We held that "egregious agency misconduct is not a 'special factor' under § 2412(d)(2)(A)."

  2. Dist. of Columbia Water & Sewer Auth. v. United States

    No. 18-1586C (Fed. Cl. Sep. 10, 2021)

    oting Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 340 (1997)); see also Republic of Sudan v. Harrison, 139 S.Ct. 1048, 1056 (2019) (quoting Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 566 U.S. 399, 412 (2012) ("We begin 'where all such inquiries must begin: with the language of the statute itself.'" (quoting United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 241 (1989)))); Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113, 118 (2009) ("As with any question of statutory interpretation, our analysis begins with the plain language of the statute."); Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, 973 F.3d 1321, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ("Our 'first step "is to determine whether the language at issue has a plain and unambiguous meaning with regard to the particular dispute in the case."'" (quoting Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., Inc., 534 U.S. at 450 (quoting Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. at 340))); Starry Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 892 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018) Click-To-Call Techs., LP v. Ingenio, Inc., YellowPages.com, LLC, 899 F.3d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Starry Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 892 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Bettcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 644 (Fed. Cir.), reh'g and reh'g en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2011); Strategic Hous. Fin. Corp. of Travis Cnty. v. United States, 608 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed. Cir.) ("When interpreting any statute, we look first to the statutory language."), reh'g and reh'g en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1221 (2011).

  3. Baude v. United States

    955 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 5 times

    The "unusual circumstances" clause is not an invitation to the Secretary to blanketly rewrite the regulation. See, e.g. , Starry Assocs., Inc. v. United States , 892 F.3d 1372, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("Though the term ‘special factor,’ standing alone, is ambiguous, Congress’s decision to include an example of a qualifying ‘special factor’ cabins the contextual meaning of the term."). Congress vested that power in the Secretary of Defense alone. 10 U.S.C. § 637(e).

  4. Shealey v. Wilkie

    946 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2020)

    "Congress enacted [the] EAJA ... in 1980 ‘to eliminate the barriers that prohibit small businesses and individuals from securing vindication of their rights in civil actions and administrative proceedings brought by or against the Federal Government.’ " Starry Assocs. v. United States , 892 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (second alteration in original) (quoting Scarborough v. Principi , 541 U.S. 401, 406, 124 S.Ct. 1856, 158 L.Ed.2d 674 (2004) ). There are three theories on which Ms. Gentile and Mr. Hoffman might have standing to sue the government for attorney’s fees under the EAJA.

  5. Aldridge ex rel. United States v. Corp. Mgmt.

    Civil Action No. 1:16-CV00369 HTW-LGI (S.D. Miss. Mar. 31, 2021)

    Federal jurisprudence, in appropriate circumstances, allows costs to both plaintiffs and defendants. See Scarborough v. Principi, 541 U.S. 401, 406 (2004) Starry Associates, Inc. v. United States, 892 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Lauritzen v. Lehman, 736 F.2d 550, 558 (9th Cir. 1984) (the standard under section 2412 (d) covers both prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing defendants in general litigation against the Government).

  6. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

    1:18-CV-00549 (BKS/CFH) (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2019)   Cited 2 times

    To answer this question, the parties have addressed the text, structure, history, and purpose of the patent venue statute, and the Court will do so as well. See Starry Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 892 F.3d 1372, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (looking to “the text, structure, purpose, and legislative history” of a federal statute to discern its meaning); accord Catskill Mountains Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Inc. v. EPA, 846 F.3d 492, 512 (2d Cir. 2017) (“We examine the statutory text, structure, and purpose as reflected in its legislative history.

  7. Yang v. United States

    No. 20-240C (Fed. Cl. Sep. 17, 2021)

    Even so, the court's discretion to reduce fees remains "significant." Starry Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 892 F.3d 1372, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In that respect, § 2412(d)(2)(D) provides that "fees and expenses may not be awarded to a party for any portion of the litigation in which the party has unreasonably protracted the proceedings."

  8. Adkins v. United States

    No. 10-851T (Fed. Cl. Jun. 29, 2021)

    Consequently, courts consider case law construing the EAJA to be instructive when assessing a request for attorney's fees and costs under I.R.C. § 7430. See Nat'l Org. for Marriage, Inc. v. United States, 807 F.3d 592, 597 n.4 (4th Cir. 2015); First Interstate Bank of Cal. v. Purewell Inv., Inc., 76 F.3d 386 (9th Cir. 1996) (unpublished table decision); Lennox v. Comm'r, 998 F.2d 244, 248 n.4 (5th Cir. 1993); Kenagy v. United States, 942 F.2d 459, 464 (8th Cir. 1991); Larsen v. United States, 39 Fed.Cl. 162, 167 n.9 (1997), appeal dismissed, 152 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (unpublished table order); Pohl Corp. v. United States, 29 Fed.Cl. 66, 71-72 (1993), appeal dismissed, 36 F.3d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (unpublished table order); cf. Starry Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 892 F.3d 1372, 1383-84 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (discussing, in a case concerning the EAJA, a decision of another circuit court of appeals that addressed I.R.C. § 7430). b. Plaintiffs May Obtain Attorney's Fees