9th Cir.

Torres Hernandez v. Su

June 25, 2026 ·1:20-cv-03241-TOR ·Unpublished · By James Taylor

The Ninth Circuit affirmed that the government's position was not substantially justified under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The court reversed the district court's fee reduction and remanded for a higher award based on the plaintiffs' significant success.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 1:11

Background

Plaintiffs Ramon Torres Hernandez and Familias Unidas por la Justicia, AFL-CIO, appealed a district court order reducing their attorney fee request under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The government cross-appealed the finding that its position was not substantially justified.

The court’s reasoning

The court held that the government failed to establish that its approach to the prevailing wage survey was consistent with a reasonable interpretation of its regulations. While the plaintiffs did not achieve all goals, their success in securing injunctions and amendments protecting millions in wages was significant. The district court’s four-sentence explanation for a seventy-five percent across-the-board fee reduction was insufficient given the favorable results.

What it means going forward

The decision requires the district court to recalculate attorney fees with a more specific explanation that accounts for the plaintiffs’ significant achievements, likely resulting in a higher award than the initial reduction.