Hajro v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs.
Decision Date | 15 October 2012 |
Docket Number | Case No. 08–1350–PSG. |
Citation | 900 F.Supp.2d 1034 |
Parties | Mirsad HAJRO and James R. Mayock, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; T. Diane Cejka, Director, National Records Center; Rosemary Melville, District Director of San Francisco; Janet Napolitano, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; Eric Holder, Attorney General, Department of Justice, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Kip Evan Steinberg, Law Offices of Kip Evan Steinberg, San Rafael, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Ila Casy Deiss, United States Attorney's Office, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING–IN–PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS
Plaintiff Mirsad Hajro (“Hajro”) and Plaintiff James R. Mayock (“Mayock”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) seek recovery of attorneys' fees and costs from Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), T. Diane Cejka (“Cejka”), Rosemary Melville (“Melville”), and Janet Napolitano (“Napolitano”) (collectively “Defendants”), pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA” or “the Act”), 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E). Having considered the parties' papers and oral arguments, the court GRANTS–IN–PART Plaintiffs' motion.
The long history of this case is detailed in the court's October 12, 2011 order denying-in-part and granting-in-part the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.1 In this order, the court repeats only those facts relevant to the pending request.
In November 2007, Hajro filed a FOIA request with the USCIS's National Records Center to obtain a copy of his alien registration file after his application for naturalization was rejected on the grounds that he had provided false testimony. Hajro sought expedited processing of his request pursuant to USCIS's system of prioritizing FOIA requests. In 2007, USCIS implemented a three-track system for processing FOIA requests: “Track 1” for simple requests, “Track 2” for complex inquiries requiring additional time, and “Track 3” for expedited processing for individuals subject to removal proceedings and scheduled for a hearing before an immigration judge. 2 Hajro's expedited processing request was denied; USCIS did not provide him with its decision or his records until March 2008.
Mayock was the plaintiff in a 1992 suit resulting in a settlement agreement (“Settlement Agreement”) with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) 3 regarding its pattern and practice of violating various provisions of FOIA. He sued in his role as an immigration attorney who made FOIA requests to INS to obtain his clients' alien registration files. Following the Settlement Agreement, Mayock continued, at times, to make FOIA requests for his clients. As in the case with Hajro, USCIS failed to provide its decisions to Mayock within the limits set under FOIA.
In March 2008, Mayock and Hajro filed suit against USCIS, Cejka, Melville, Napolitano, and Eric Holder in this court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under FOIA and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 553, 702, 704, and 706. The parties each moved for summary judgment on the nine claims brought in the suit and this court proceeded to rule. 4 Plaintiffs prevailed on eight of their nine claims:
(1) “Track 3” of USCIS's multi-track policy violated the Settlement Agreement;
(2) USCIS's denial of Hajro's request for expedited processing violated the Settlement Agreement;
(3) The timing of USCIS's response to Hajro with the requested material violated FOIA Section 552(a)(6)(A) and 6 C.F.R. § 5.6(b);
(4) USCIS's failure to notify Hajro of the “unusual circumstances” preventing USCIS from processing his FOIA request within the 20–day statutory limit violated 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(c)(1);
(5) USCIS had a pattern or practice of failing to comply with the timing requirements set forth by FOIA Sections 552(a)(6)(A), (B), (C);
(6) USCIS unlawfully withheld the information requested by Hajro in violation of FOIA Section 551 et seq. and 555(b);
(7) USCIS's withholding of nonexempt material violated Hajro's due process rights because of the consequential interference with his ability to adequately appeal his naturalization denial; and
(8) USCIS's adoption of the “Track 3” policy without notice and comment rulemaking procedure violated Section 553 of the APA.
Holder prevailed on his summary judgment motion, and all claims against him were dismissed.5 The motions of Napolitano, Cejka, and Melville were granted as to Plaintiffs' FOIA claims.6 USCIS was granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs' ninth claim that the “Track 3” policy violated the Fifth Amendment guarantee of equal protection.7
The court later issued a permanent injunction mandating that Defendants comply with their obligations under FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6), and under the Settlement Agreement.8 Defendants have appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case is currently pending. While awaiting the Ninth Circuit's decision, Plaintiffs' counsel has moved to recover attorneys' fees for his representation in this court.
FOIA authorizes the court to “assess against the United States reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in any case under this section in which the complainant has substantially prevailed.” 9 An award of fees is not mandatory under the Act; it lies within the discretion of the court.10 To determine whether a fee award is appropriate, the court must consider whether plaintiffs are both eligible for and entitled to recovery.11 Plaintiffs are eligible if they have substantially prevailed on their action, which generally requires that they show two criteria have been met: (1) “filing of the FOIA action was necessary to obtain the information sought” and (2) “the action had a ‘substantial causative effect’ on the ultimate receipt of that information.” 12
Assuming plaintiffs have met the threshold eligibility requirement, the court must then determine whether they are entitled to fees. The court evaluates four factors: (1) “the public benefit from disclosure”; (2) “any commercial benefit to the plaintiff resulting from disclosure”; (3) “the nature of the plaintiff's interest in the disclosed records”; and (4) “whether the government's withholding of the records had a reasonable basis in law.” 13 The court also may consider “whatever factors it deems relevant in determining whether an award of attorney's fees is appropriate.” 14
If the court finds plaintiffs are both eligible for and entitled to fee recovery, plaintiffs must provide the court with their fee bill “for its scrutiny of the reasonableness of (a) the number of hours expended and (b) the hourly fee claimed.” 15 If both the number of hours and the hourly fee are reasonable, this lodestar figure enjoys a “strong presumption” that it “represents a reasonable fee.” 16 The court may, however, “authorize an upward or downward adjustment from the lodestar figure if certain factors relating to the nature and difficulty of the case overcome [the] strong presumption.” 17
In their written objection to Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, Defendants argued that the court should stay the motion pending outcome of their appeal to the Ninth Circuit.18 At oral argument, however,Defendants suggested that they were not, in fact, seeking a stay but merely opposing Plaintiff's motion with an argument regarding its timeliness. Plaintiffs responded that their inability to collect post judgment interest until the court issued a decision on their motion would be injurious, especially in light of the amount of time an appeal could take.19
The court must confess that in light of their statements at the hearing, Defendants' present position is not entirely clear. But understanding that Defendants in any event believe Plaintiffs' request is premature, the court begins by noting it “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.” 20 Defendants have argued that staying Plaintiffs' motion is a proper exercise of that discretion in light of the interests of judicial economy to avoid having the court's fee order rendered moot if the order granting Plaintiffs summary judgment is reversed. Defendants point to Karuk Tribe of California v. U.S. Forest Service to support their position.21 In Karuk, the district court granted a stay on the plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees in the interests of judicial economy and to avoid overcompensation of the plaintiff.22
Karuk is distinguishable. There, the plaintiff had lost or settled all of its claims and had appealed the claims on which it had lost.23 Here, Plaintiffs have prevailed on all but one of their claims. In light of the Plaintiffs' success in this court and the potential loss of post judgment interest that would occur absent an order regarding attorneys' fees,24 the court will not postpone Plaintiffs' motion.25 This case has been delayed enough.
Before determining Plaintiffs' eligibility or entitlement to fees, the court must first address to which of Plaintiffs' claims Section 552(a)(4)(E) applies. As noted previously, Section 552(a)(4)(E) provides:
The court may assess against the United States reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in any case under this section in which the complainant has substantially prevailed.
The issue before the court is the breadth of the phrase “any case under this section.” Plaintiffs understandably seek a broad interpretation of the phrase, to include “any FOIA action whether the claim is based on FOIA, the APA, the Constitution, the violation of a settlement agreement, or any other legal tool used to improve FOIA processing.” 26 Defendants, just as understandably, argue for a narrow interpretation, to allow attorneys' fees...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hajro v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs.
... ... See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B). Because Mayock did not provide sufficient evidence of his personal harm, we also remand to allow the district court to determine prong three in the first instance after the requisite fact finding. While this case was pending before us, Hajro successfully appealed USCIS's denial of his application for citizenship. Hajro v. Barrett, No. C 1001772 MEJ, 2011 WL 2118602 (N.D.Cal. May 27, 2011) ; Hajro v. Barrett, 849 F.Supp.2d 945 (N.D.Cal.2012). Thus, based on the record before us, the likelihood that Hajro will file another ... ...
-
The Sierra Club v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency
... ... Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 18081, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 ... F.Supp.2d 918, 921 (N.D.Cal.2011) (award of $575); Hajro v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 900 F.Supp.2d ... ...
-
Our Children's Earth Found. v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv.
... ... See Hajro v ... United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs ., 900 ... ...
-
Banas v. Volcano Corp.
... ... Resurgent Capital Servs., L.P., 2012 WL 3778852, at *8 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 30, 2012), ... % from the block-billed hours in Samsung's request); Hajro v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 900 F.Supp.2d ... ...