October 30, 2015

JM CARRANZA TRUCKING CO. v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

PSBCA Nos. 6354, 6367, 6373, 6421, 6422

APPEARANCE FOR APPELLANT:
Joel D. Broida, Esq
Broida & McKinney, P.A. 

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Peter J. McNulty, Esq.
United States Postal Service Law Department   

OPINION OF THE BOARD ON APPELLANT’S MOTION

JM Carranza Trucking Co. (Carranza Trucking or Appellant) moves for an order enforcing our earlier Decision granting its Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) application in part or, in the alternative, an order clarifying our earlier Decision.  We deny Appellant’s motion.

DISCUSSION

We begin with a brief procedural history.  In previous litigation, we upheld the Postal Service’s termination for default of two contracts with Carranza Trucking.  We also allowed the Postal Service to recover $81,389.90 of $285,549.24 it claimed. JM Carranza Trucking Co. v. United States Postal Service, PSBCA Nos. 6354, et al.,14-1 BCA ¶ 35,776. 

Carranza Trucking then applied for legal fees pursuant to EAJA.  We granted $7,881.67 of its application.  JM Carranza Trucking Co. v. United States Postal Service, PSBCA Nos. 6354, et al., 15-1 BCA ¶ 35,994.

The Postal Service applied the $7,881.67 EAJA award to offset the outstanding balance owed by Carranza Trucking.  See Carranza Trucking Motion, September 9, 2015.  Appellant, through its counsel, argues that the EAJA fees should be paid directly to Carranza Trucking’s counsel and that the offset was improper.  The Postal Service opposes the motion.

The Supreme Court has addressed this issue.  EAJA fee awards are payable to the litigant, not the litigant’s attorney.  Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 593 (2010).  Therefore, EAJA fee awards are “subject[ ] . . . to . . . offset if the litigant has outstanding federal debts.”  Id.
  
The case law relied upon by Carranza Trucking to support its argument that EAJA fees are not subject to offset predates the Supreme Court’s ruling in Astrue v. Ratliff; and, therefore, is not controlling.

ORDER

Carranza Trucking’s motion is denied.  The Postal Service is not prohibited from offsetting the EAJA fees against Carranza Trucking’s outstanding debts.

Peter F. Pontzer
Administrative Judge
Board Member 

I concur:
Gary E. Shapiro
Administrative Judge
Vice Chairman 

I concur:
Alan R. Caramella
Administrative Judge
Board Member