Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Kalodner v. Bodman
Citation: 205 F. App'x 833Docket: No. 2005-1310
Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; October 4, 2006; Federal Appellate Court
Philip P. Kalodner responded to a court order regarding the potential dismissal of his appeal due to lack of jurisdiction. The Secretary of Energy supported this dismissal. Kalodner had initially filed a suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia to seek attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction since EAJA only allows fee awards to prevailing parties, not to counsel. Kalodner appealed to both this court and the D.C. Circuit, which affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding the case. The court clarified its limited jurisdiction over cases involving the Economic Stabilization Act (ESA) and the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act (EPAA). Jurisdiction is only applicable when the litigation requires the application or interpretation of ESA/EPAA regulations and when such issues have been adjudicated in the district court. The court noted that the district court had not addressed any ESA or EPAA issues, prompting Kalodner to argue that the D.C. Circuit had implicitly found that the district court considered an ESA issue, thus binding this court under the law of the case doctrine. However, the court emphasized that law of the case applies only to issues actually decided, which was not the situation here. Ultimately, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of adjudicated ESA or EPAA issues and dismissed the appeal, ordering that each side bear its own costs, and directing counsel for the Secretary to promptly enter an appearance.