In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 17-1638 Filed: March 23, 2020 Reissued: April 22, 20201 ) 2M RESEARCH SERVICES, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Attorneys’ Fees; Equal Access to Justice v. ) Act; EAJA; 28 U.S.C. § 2412; 28 U.S.C. ) § 2412(b); 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A); THE UNITED STATES, ) Special Factor; Cost of Living ) Adjustment; Limited Availability of Defendant, ) Qualified Attorneys. ) VISION PLANNING & CONSULTING LLC, ) ) Defendant-Intervenor. ) ) Jessica Catherine Abrahams, Drinker, Biddle & Reath, Washington, DC, for plaintiff. Nathanael Brown Yale, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for defendant. Patrick Trent Rothwell, PilieroMazza PLLC, Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenor. OPINION AND ORDER SMITH, Senior Judge This action is before the Court on plaintiff’s Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. Plaintiff, 2M Research Services (“2M”), is a certified small business that specializes in providing research, program evaluation, statistical consulting, and program-support-related services to federal agencies. 2M Research Servs., LLC v. United States, 139 Fed. Cl. 471, 474 (2018). On October 31, 2017, plaintiff filed a complaint with this Court, protesting the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (“FEMA”) decision to award a contract to Vision Planning & Consulting, LLC under Solicitation No. HSFE40-16-R-0002. Complaint, ECF No. 1 (hereinafter “Compl.”), at 1. On July 25, 2018, the Court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff, holding that the award was arbitrary and capricious. See 2M Research Servs., 139 Fed. Cl. at 480. On December 27, 2018, plaintiff timely filed its Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs pursuant 1 An unredacted version of this opinion was issued under seal on March 23, 2020. The parties were given an opportunity to propose redactions, and those redactions are reflected herein. to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (2018). See generally Plaintiff’s Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, ECF No. 65 (hereinafter “Pl.’s EAJA Appl.”). In response, the government claims the following: (1) 2M failed to demonstrate that it is eligible for EAJA fees; (2) 2M’s exhibits raise concerns as to whether 2M, rather than its subcontractor, actually incurred the expenses alleged; and (3) 2M is not entitled to enhanced attorneys’ fees based on a “special factor.” See generally Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Expenses Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, ECF No. 68 (hereinafter “Def.’s EAJA Resp.”). For the reasons set forth below, the Court awards plaintiff $97,169.13 in attorneys’ fees and costs. I. Background On December 27, 2018, after the Court entered judgment in favor of 2M, plaintiff timely filed its Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. See generally Pl.’s EAJA Appl. In that Application, plaintiff claims it is entitled to the attorneys’ fees and costs it incurred during the course of litigation, as an eligible small business under § 2412(d) of EAJA. See generally id. In its EAJA Application, plaintiff asserts that, as 2M was the prevailing party and as the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals