Sarah Blair v. Carolyn Colvin
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Sarah Blair appeals from the district court’s order reducing her attorneys’ fees and costs award under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). Blair claims that the district court erred by (1) making multiple substantial justification determinations, (2) concluding that her claims were unrelated, (3) finding that she did not obtain an excellent result, and (4) failing to explain its fees award sufficiently.
I
In order to recover attorneys’ fees under the EAJA, a plaintiff must establish her eligibility by demonstrating, inter alia, that the government was not “substantially justified” in the positions it took on the merits litigation. 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d)(1)(A). “[T]he ‘substantial justification’ requirement is a single finding that operates as a threshold for determining EAJA eligibility.” Atkins v. Apfel, 154 F.3d 986, 989 (9th Cir.1998) (emphasis added). Because “[a] district court abuses its discretion when it fails to apply the correct legal rule,” Meier v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 867, 869-70 (9th Cir.2013), the district court abused its discretion in making separate substantial -justification determinations for each of the issues Blair raised on appeal.