Ratliff v. Astrue
Decision Date | 05 September 2008 |
Docket Number | No. 07-2317.,07-2317. |
Parties | Catherine G. RATLIFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
James D. Leach, argued, Rapid City, SD, for appellant.
Michael E. Robinson, argued, U.S. DOJ, Washington, DC, Cheryl Schrempp Dupris, AUSA, on the brief, Pierre, SD, Wayne M. Stanley, Spec. AUSA, SSA, Denver, CO, and Deanna R. Ertl-Lombardi, Regional Chief Counsel, SSA, Denver, CO., for appellee.
Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Catherine G. Ratliff, an attorney, appeals from a district court judgment allowing the government to offset an award of attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b), against debts her clients owe the federal government. Based on controlling Eighth Circuit precedent, we conclude that attorneys' fees awarded under the EAJA are awarded to the prevailing parties' attorneys, rather than to the parties themselves, and therefore cannot be used to offset the parties' debts to the government. Thus, we reverse the judgment of the district court.
Ratliff successfully represented two claimants in their efforts to receive benefits from the Social Security Administration. She then moved for the award of fees and costs under the EAJA. The court granted the fees. The government reduced the fee award because of debts the claimants owed the United States government. Ratliff alleged this was an illegal seizure prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. The district court determined that because the fees were awarded to the parties, not their attorney, Ratliff lacked standing to challenge the government's offset.
We review the district court's judgment de novo. Emergency Med. Servs., Inc. v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 495 F.3d 999, 1009 (8th Cir.2007) ( ); Jones v. Gale, 470 F.3d 1261, 1265 (8th Cir.2006) ().
Based on controlling Eighth Circuit precedent, we conclude that the attorney's fees in this case are awarded to the parties' attorney. We recognize that many courts have reached the opposite conclusion. See Reeves v. Astrue, 526 F.3d 732, 733 (11th Cir.2008) ( ); Manning v. Astrue, 510 F.3d 1246, 1249-50 (10th Cir.2007) ( ); FDL Techs., Inc. v. United States, 967 F.2d 1578, 1580 (Fed.Cir.1992) ( ); Panola Land Buying Ass'n v. Clark, 844 F.2d 1506, 1510 (11th Cir.1988) ( ). Were we deciding this case in the first instance, we may well agree with our sister circuits and be persuaded by a literal interpretation of the EAJA, providing that "a court may award reasonable fees and expenses of attorneys ... to the prevailing party." 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b) (emphasis added).
However, case law from this circuit compels a contrary conclusion. In Curtis v. City of Des Moines, 995 F.2d 125, 129 (8th Cir.1993), we held that EAJA attorneys are entitled to fees awards; thus, the fees could not be recovered by a third-party judgment creditor of the plaintiff. This also holds true if the judgment creditor is the government. United States v. McPeck, 910 F.2d 509, 514 (8th Cir.1990). In McPeck, we remanded and directed the bankruptcy court to "determine whether attorneys' fees can be awarded" under the Internal Revenue Code and, if so, specifically directed that "the award of attorneys' fees should be assessed affirmatively against the [government], and not as an offset against its tax claim." Id. Applying Curtis and McPeck, we hold EAJA fee awards become the property of the prevailing party's attorney when assessed and may not be used to offset the claimant's debt. See also Marre v. United States, 117 F.3d 297, 304 (5th Cir.1997) ( ).
Because we hold EAJA attorneys' fees are awarded to prevailing parties' attorneys, we find that Ratliff has standing to bring an independent action to collect the fees and that the government's withholding of the fee awards to cover the claimants' debts was in violation of the Fourth Amendment. We reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I concur in the Court's judgment because I agree that we are bound by our prior decision in Curtis and that Curtis compels the conclusion that EAJA attorney's fees are awarded to the party's attorney. While Curtis involved the award of attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and not the EAJA, see 995 F.2d at 128-29, Curtis's holding applies to this EAJA case because these "fee-shifting statutes' similar language is a strong indication that they are to be interpreted alike," Independent Federation of Flight Attendants v. Zipes, 491 U.S. 754, 758 n. 2, 109 S.Ct. 2732, 105 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989). See also Northcross v. Bd. of Educ. of Memphis City Sch., 412 U.S. 427, 428, 93 S.Ct. 2201, 37 L.Ed.2d 48 (1973) (). Furthermore, the Curtis court's conclusion that the attorneys were entitled to the fees without regard to the priority of the judgment creditor's claim necessarily means that the attorneys' fees were awarded to and belonged to the attorneys and not the party they represented. Had the fee award ever belonged to the party, the court would have been required to analyze the priority of the competing claims. Accordingly, I agree with the Court that Curtis compels the conclusion that the attorney's fees awarded pursuant to the EAJA are awarded to the attorney, not her clients.1
I write separately to emphasize that our holding today, as compelled by Curtis, is inconsistent with language in two Supreme Court opinions, the EAJA's plain language, and the holdings of most other circuit courts. In Evans v. Jeff D., the Supreme Court stated that "the language of [§ 1988], as well as its legislative history, indicates that Congress bestowed on the `prevailing party' ..." eligibility for a discretionary award of attorney's fees in specified civil rights actions. 475 U.S. 717, 730, 106 S.Ct. 1531, 89 L.Ed.2d 747 (1986). Several years later, in Venegas v. Mitchell, the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier statement, saying that it "[had] recognized that it is the party's entitlement to receive the fees in the appropriate case," 495 U.S. 82, 88, 110 S.Ct. 1679, 109 L.Ed.2d 74 (1990) (citing Evans, 475 U.S. at 730-31, 106 S.Ct. 1531), and "[had] already rejected the argument that the entitlement to a § 1988 award belongs to the attorney rather than the plaintiff," id. at 89, 110 S.Ct. 1679 (citing Evans, 475 U.S. at 731-32, 106 S.Ct. 1531). This language undermines Curtis's implicit holding that attorney's fees awarded under § 1988 are awarded to a prevailing party's attorney, as well as our conclusion today that EAJA attorney's fees are awarded to a prevailing party's attorney. See Manning, 510 F.3d at 1249-50 ( ).
Further, our conclusion that EAJA attorney's fees are awarded to a prevailing party's attorney also contradicts the plain language of the EAJA. In interpreting a statute we first "determine whether the language at issue has a plain and unambiguous meaning with regard to the particular dispute in the case." Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 340, 117 S.Ct. 843, 136 L.Ed.2d 808 (1997). If so, we apply the plain language of the statute. Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438, 450, 122 S.Ct. 941, 151 L.Ed.2d 908 (2002). The EAJA provides that "a court may award reasonable fees and expenses of attorneys ... to the prevailing party . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b) (emphasis added). The EAJA clearly states that the attorney's reasonable fees and expenses are awarded directly to the prevailing party and does not authorize a court to award fees and expenses to the attorney. I recognize the policy argument that Congress created the EAJA to encourage attorneys to provide representation in certain cases where they might otherwise be unwilling and that to hold that the attorney's fees belong to the client might frustrate this purpose. See Evans, 475 U.S. at 731, 106 S.Ct. 1531 (); Curtis, 995 F.2d at 129. Nonetheless, the plain language of the EAJA awards the attorney's fees to a prevailing party, not the prevailing party...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Astrue v. Ratliff, No. 08–1322.
...offset. See No. CIV. 06–5070–RHB, 2007 WL 6894710, *1 (D.S.D., May 10, 2007).The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed. 540 F.3d 800 (2008). It held that under Circuit precedent, “EAJA attorneys' fees are awarded to prevailing parties' attorneys.” Id., at 802. The Court of Appeal......
-
Astrue v. Ratliff
...offset. See No. CIV. 06-5070-RHB, 2007 WL 6894710, *1 (D.S.D., May 10, 2007). The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed. 540 F.3d 800 (2008). It held that under Circuit precedent, "EAJA attorneys' fees are awarded to prevailing parties' attorneys." Id., at 802. The Court of Appea......
-
Murkeldove v. Astrue
...the clear statement of Commissioner's position in the petition for writ of certiorari it filed in April 2009 in Ratliff v. Astrue, 540 F.3d 800 (8th Cir.2008) (Pet. for Writ of Cert, at 7-10), Astrue v. Ratliff, No. 08-1322 (U.S. Apr. 28, 2009, 2009 WL 1155415). Tr. of July 7 Hr'g at 14. In......
-
Vinning v. Astrue
...opinion. On September 30, 2009, the Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari Commissioner filed in Ratliff v. Astrue, 540 F.3d 800 (8th Cir.2008), which the court mentioned at pages 581-82 of the Murkeldove opinion, on the following Whether an "award of fees and other expen......
-
Issue Topics
...of the client, subject to offset for the client’s debts. The same question was considered by the Eighth Circuit in Ratliff v. Astrue , 540 F.3d 800 (8th Cir. 2008) ( Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Dec. 5, 2008), but it reached the opposite conclusion. The Eighth Circuit ruled that t......
-
Attorney's Fees
...Social Security benefits, that attorney’s fees under a statute similar to the EAJA were payable directly to attorney); Ratliff v. Astrue , 540 F.3d 800, 802 (8th Cir. 2008), cert. granted, 78 U.S.L.W. 3011 (U.S. Sept. 30, 2009) (No. 08-1322) (EAJA fees are payable to the attorney). Practice......
-
Attorney's Fees
...Social Security benefits, that attorney’s fees under a statute similar to the EAJA were payable directly to attorney); Ratliff v. Astrue , 540 F.3d 800, 802 (8th Cir. 2008), cert. granted, 78 U.S.L.W. 3011 (U.S. Sept. 30, 2009) (No. 08-1322) (EAJA fees are payable to the attorney). Practice......
-
Issue topics
...of the client, subject to offset for the client’s debts. The same question was considered by the Eighth Circuit in Ratliff v. Astrue , 540 F.3d 800 (8 th Cir. 2008) ( Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Dec. 5, 2008), but it reached the opposite conclusion. The Eighth Circuit ruled that ......