DANIEL HAGGART, ET AL. Plaintiffs DENISE L. WOODLEY v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DANIEL HAGGART, ET AL.
Plaintiffs
DENISE L. WOODLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-1256
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:09-cv-00103-CFL, Senior Judge Charles F. Lettow.
______________________
Decided: January 7, 2026
______________________
G ORDON ARTHUR WOODLEY , Bellevue, WA, argued for
plaintiff-appellant.
ALLEN M. BRABENDER , Appellate Section, Environment
and Natural Resources Division, United States Depart-
ment of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-ap-
pellee. Also represented by T ODD K IM .
______________________
Case: 24-1256 Document: 74 Page: 1 Filed: 01/07/2026

-- 1 of 5 --

HAGGART v. US 2
Before P ROST , T ARANTO, and HUGHES , Circuit Judges.
P ROST , Circuit Judge.
Denise L. Woodley appeals a decision of the U.S. Court
of Federal Claims denying her requests for monetary relief
on post-judgment interest, appellate expenses, and attor-
ney’s fees. Haggart v. United States, 168 Fed. Cl. 148
(2023) (“CFC Decision”). For the following reasons, we af-
firm.
BACKGROUND
The facts of this case are set forth in detail in our pre-
vious decision. Haggart v. United States, 38 F.4th 164
(Fed. Cir. 2022) (“CAFC Decision”). The pertinent facts are
as follows. Denise Woodley and her husband, Gordon A.
Woodley, as members of a class, reached a settlement
agreement with the government awarding them compensa-
tion for the taking of their property. Subsequently, the
Woodleys filed motions for attorney’s fees and expenses at
the Court of Federal Claims under the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act
(“URA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4654(c). The Court of Federal Claims
awarded attorney’s fees for work performed by counsel they
jointly hired but denied Denise Woodley’s motion for attor-
ney’s fees for work performed by her attorney-spouse, Gor-
don Woodley, and to recover certain expenses. Those
expenses were: (1) the cost of obtaining an appraisal of the
property at issue; (2) the Woodleys’ filing fee in their 2014
pro se appeal to this court; and (3) a fee for URA legislative-
history research paid to a third party. She appealed her
denied motion.
On appeal, we affirmed the decision of the Court of Fed-
eral Claims declining to award attorney’s fees for work per-
formed by Gordon Woodley. We concluded that “[w]e see
no sound reason to read the URA’s fee provision to author-
ize an attorney pro se litigant to receive attorney’s fees
Case: 24-1256 Document: 74 Page: 2 Filed: 01/07/2026

-- 2 of 5 --

HAGGART v. US 3
when . . . other fee-shifting statutes do not.” CAFC Deci-
sion, 38 F.4th at 169. We, however, vacated the denial of
recovery for her three expenses and remanded for determi-
nation as to reasonableness of these expenses. We held
that “Denise Woodley may recover reasonable expenses
even though she may not recover the attorney’s fees she
seeks for Gordon Woodley’s work.” Id. at 171. We also
stated in a footnote that “[o]n remand, the [Court of Fed-
eral Claims], if it awards expenses, should consider any
properly preserved request for interest.” Id. at 171 n.4.
On remand, the government did not contest the reason-
ableness of the three expenses. Denise Woodley, however,
made new requests for monetary relief in addition to the
three expenses and post-judgment interest on those ex-
penses. Specifically, she added (1) post-judgment interest
on the awarded attorney’s fees for work done by counsel the
Woodleys jointly hired; (2) expenses she allegedly incurred
during her recent appeal to the Federal Circuit; and (3) at-
torney’s fees for work performed by Gordon Woodley during
her recent appeal to the Federal Circuit and anticipated on
remand to the Court of Federal Claims. The Court of Fed-
eral Claims granted Denise Woodley’s request for recovery
of the three specific expenses addressed by the Federal Cir-
cuit in her appeal. The court, however, denied her request
for post-judgment interest on those expenses as well as her
three additional requests. See CFC Decision, 168 Fed. Cl.
at 156–60.
Denise Woodley timely appealed. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
“This court reviews legal conclusions by the Court of
Federal Claims de novo and factual findings for clear er-
ror.” Casitas Mun. Water Dist. v. United States, 708 F.3d
1340, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “We review the Court of Fed-
eral Claims’ attorney fee determination for an abuse of
Case: 24-1256 Document: 74 Page: 3 Filed: 01/07/2026

-- 3 of 5 --

HAGGART v. US 4
discretion.” Biery v. United States, 818 F.3d 704, 710 (Fed.
Cir. 2016).
On appeal, Denise Woodley argues that the Court of
Federal Claims (1) incorrectly determined that she was not
entitled to post-judgment interest on her three expenses;
and (2) incorrectly denied her additional requests for mon-
etary relief. We address each argument in turn.
First, we agree with the Court of Federal Claims that
the no-interest rule bars recovery of post-judgment interest
on Denise Woodley’s three expenses. Under the no-interest
rule, “[i]nterest may not be recovered against the govern-
ment in the absence of an explicit waiver of sovereign im-
munity for that purpose.” Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Johnson,
8 F.3d 791, 798 (Fed. Cir. 1993). “[T]he waiver [of] sover-
eign immunity for interest must be distinct from a general
waiver of immunity for the cause of action resulting in the
damages award against the United States.” Marathon Oil
Co. v. United States, 374 F.3d 1123, 1126–27 (Fed. Cir.
2004). As the Court of Federal Claims explained,
“[a]lthough statutes can waive interest immunity, neither
the URA nor 28 U.S.C. § 1961(c) waives interest immunity
in this case.” CFC Decision, 168 Fed. Cl. at 158.
Second, we agree with the Court of Federal Claims’ de-
cision denying Denise Woodley’s additional requests for
monetary relief. See id. at 159–60. Specifically, (a) regard-
ing post-judgment interest on attorney’s fees, as explained
above, neither the URA nor 28 U.S.C. § 1961(c) waives the
government’s post-judgment interest immunity; (b) the
mandate rule prohibits recovery of her appellate expenses
because this court decided that issue when we stated in our
opinion and order that “the parties shall bear their own
costs,” CAFC Decision, 38 F.4th at 172; and (c) the man-
date rule prohibits recovery of attorney’s fees for work per-
formed by Gordon Woodley during her appeal and on
remand because that issue was already decided on appeal
when we upheld the Court of Federal Claims’ reasoning
Case: 24-1256 Document: 74 Page: 4 Filed: 01/07/2026

-- 4 of 5 --

HAGGART v. US 5
regarding recovery of attorney’s fees by pro se litigants for
time spent pursuing their own interests.
Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Federal Claims’ de-
cision denying Denise Woodley’s requests.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Denise Woodley’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea-
sons, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
Case: 24-1256 Document: 74 Page: 5 Filed: 01/07/2026

-- 5 of 5 --