Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
MARIA FERNANDA VALASCO
HURTADO, et al.,
Petitioners,
vs.
PAMELA BONDI, United States
Attorney General, et al.,
Respondents.
0:26-CV-546
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION
The petitioners have moved for $45,675.86 in attorney's fees and costs
pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (EAJA). Filing
29. The motion will be granted in part, and the petitioners will be awarded fees
and costs totaling $35,324.69.
The EAJA requires a court to award fees, costs, and other expenses to a
prevailing party in proceedings brought against the federal government,
unless the position of the government was substantially justified or special
circumstances make an award unjust. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The federal government
carries the burden of proving that its position, including the action by the
agency upon which the civil action was based, see § 2412(d)(2)(D), was
substantially justified. United States v. Hurt, 676 F.3d 649, 652 (8th Cir. 2012).
But the government has failed to carry that burden. The Court finds that
the petitioners are prevailing parties for purposes of the statute. See
§ 2412(d)(2)(H); Michelin v. Warden Moshannon Valley Corr. Ctr., Nos. 24-
2990, 24-3198, 2026 WL 263483, at *1-2 (3d Cir. 2026). The Court does not
understand the government to be arguing otherwise. See filing 34. Rather, the
CASE 0:26-cv-00546-JMG-DLM Doc. 35 Filed 03/17/26 Page 1 of 4

government argues its position was substantially justified. See filing 34.1 But
for the reasons articulated in Salazar v. Noem, No. 8:26-CV-44, 2026 WL
594606 (D. Neb. Mar. 3, 2026), the Court finds the government's conduct—
particularly the underlying conduct of the agencies involved—was not
substantially justified.
It remains to the Court to determine what fees are reasonable. See
Comm'r, I.N.S. v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 160-61 (1990). The most useful starting
point for determining the amount of a reasonable fee is the number of hours
reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983) This calculation provides an
objective basis on which to make an initial estimate of the value of a lawyer's
services. Id. The Court must exclude from this calculation hours that were not
reasonably expended. Id. at 433-34.
The Court has little quarrel with most of the hours spent in this
litigation, largely required by the government's conduct not only in unlawfully
detaining the petitioners, but removing them from the jurisdiction, imposing
additional conditions of release upon them, and failing to return their property
upon release. However, several of the line items submitted by the petitioner
include activity related to elected officials and the press, which are generally
not recoverable under the EAJA. See Role Models Am., Inc. v. Brownlee, 353
F.3d 962, 973 (D.C. Cir. 2004); Halderman by Halderman v. Pennhurst State
Sch. & Hosp., 49 F.3d 939, 942 (3d Cir. 1995); Rum Creek Coal Sales, Inc v.
Caperton, 31 F.3d 169, 176 (4th Cir. 1994); Watkins v. Fordice, 7 F.3d 453, 458
(5th Cir. 1993); Greater L.A. Council on Deafness v. Cmty. Television of S. Cal.,
813 F.2d 217, 221 (9th Cir. 1987); McGee v. Cole, 115 F. Supp. 3d 765, 771
1 The government's brief was untimely. See D. Minn. LR 54.3(b) and advisory committee's
note to 2021 amendment; cf. D. Minn. LR 7.1(b)(2). The Court has accepted it regardless.
CASE 0:26-cv-00546-JMG-DLM Doc. 35 Filed 03/17/26 Page 2 of 4

(S.D.W. Va. 2015); Gunasekera v. Irwin, 774 F. Supp. 2d 882, 891-92 (S.D. Ohio
2011); Dupuy v. McEwen, 648 F. Supp. 2d 1007, 1021-22 (N.D. Ill. 2009);
Greenfield Mills, Inc. v. Carter, 569 F. Supp. 2d 737, 752 (N.D. Ind. 2008); Gratz
v. Bollinger, 353 F. Supp. 2d 929, 941-42 (E.D. Mich. 2005); Alfonso v. Aufiero,
66 F. Supp. 2d 183, 193 (D. Mass. 1999); Knight v. State of Ala., 824 F. Supp.
1022, 1034 (N.D. Ala. 1993); Gray v. Romeo, 709 F. Supp. 325, 327 (D.R.I.
1989); Ramos v. Lamm, 632 F. Supp. 376, 384 (D. Colo. 1986); Dalles Irrigation
Dist. v. United States, 91 Fed. Cl. 689, 706 (2010); see also Associated Builders
& Contractors of La., Inc. v. Orleans Par. Sch. Bd., 919 F.2d 374, 380 (5th Cir.
1990). "The legitimate goals of litigation are almost always attained in the
courtroom, not in the media." Rum Creek Coal, 31 F.3d at 176; accord McGee,
115 F. Supp. 3d at 771; see also Halderman, 49 F.3d at 942.2 Accordingly, the
Court has removed line items including such unrecoverable fees, leaving 134.6
billable hours of the 179.5 claimed. See filing 30-1 at 2-3.
The Court also finds the record somewhat thin on the hourly rates
charged for attorneys' services and administrative support. The Court agrees
that an increase in the statutory rate of $125 is appropriate based on the cost
of living. See § 2412(d)(2)(A). But information about what might be a
reasonable hourly rate is hard to see in the record. See filing 30. The Court
2 Lobbying and public relations have been recoverable expenses in a handful of cases, when
that work is "directly and intimately related to the successful representation of a client." See
Davis v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 976 F.2d 1536, 1545 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Jenkins by Agyei v.
State of Mo., 862 F.2d 677, 679 (8th Cir. 1988)), opinion vacated in part on denial of reh'g,
984 F.2d 345 (9th Cir. 1993). But this is not such a case—the result here was entirely the
result of the litigation. See Rum Creek Coal, 31 F.3d at 176; McGee, 115 F. Supp. 3d at 771;
Gunasekera, 774 F. Supp. 2d at 892; Dupuy v. McEwen, 648 F. Supp. 2d at 1021-22 (N.D. Ill.
2009); see also Watkins, 7 F.3d at 458; Knight, 824 F. Supp. at 1034.
CASE 0:26-cv-00546-JMG-DLM Doc. 35 Filed 03/17/26 Page 3 of 4

may, however, rely on its own experience and knowledge. Woodward v. Credit
Serv. Int'l Corp., 132 F.4th 1047, 1056 (8th Cir. 2025). The Court will award
attorney's fees for 134.6 billable hours at the rates of $250 per hour for attorney
time and $125 per hour for paralegal time, and $937.19 in costs, for a total
award of $35,324.69.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The petitioners' motion for attorney's fees and costs under
the EAJA (filing 29) is granted.
2. The petitioners are awarded attorney fees and costs in the
sum of $35,324.69.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated this 17th day of March, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
John M. Gerrard
Senior United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00546-JMG-DLM Doc. 35 Filed 03/17/26 Page 4 of 4