Xue Lu v. United States, No. 17-55040 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's award of attorneys' fees to plaintiff and remanded for further proceedings. The district court exercised its common law authority to award the fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), but the district court did not have the benefit of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 137 S. Ct. 1178 (2017), when it issued the award. The panel held that it could not determine whether the district court's failure to apply the appropriate legal framework was harmless.
On remand, the panel instructed that Goodyear's causation standard requires the district court to identify those expenses that plaintiffs would not have incurred but for the specific conduct that abused the judicial process, or to determine that the government's misconduct so permeated all or a portion of the suit that "all fees in the litigation, or a phase of it, meet the applicable test: They would not have been incurred except for the misconduct."
Court Description: Equal Access to Justice Act / Attorneys’ Fees. The panel vacated the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), and remanded. The panel held that because the district court did not have the benefit of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 137 S. Ct. 1178 (2017), when it issued an award of attorneys’ fees, it failed to apply the appropriate legal framework. The panel further held that it could not determine whether the court’s error was harmless, and the panel vacated the award and remanded to allow the district court to reconsider its fee award under the Goodyear standard. On remand, Goodyear’s causation standard requires the district court to identify those expenses that the plaintiffs would not have incurred but for the specific conduct that abused the judicial process, or to determine that the government’s conduct so permeated all or a portion of the suit that “all fees in the litigation, or a phase of it, meet the applicable test: They would not have been incurred except for the misconduct.” 137 S. Ct. at 1188. LU V. UNITED STATES 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.