California Native Plant Society v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ninth Circuit

California Native Plant Society v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

647 F. App'x 739

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 4, 2016

Docket14-15677

StatusUnpublished

This text of 647 F. App'x 739 (California Native Plant Society v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

California Native Plant Society v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 647 F. App'x 739 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

The California Native Plant Society, the Defenders of Wildlife, and the Butte Environmental Council (together, “California Native”) appeal the district court’s order granting their motion for attorneys’ fees, arguing that the court abused its discre *740 tion in reducing the amount of fees awarded. We have jurisdiction under 28. U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part and reverse in part.

1. The district court abused its discretion in denying California Native’s request for fees in excess of the statutory maximum rate; In finding that counsel’s environmental expertise was not necessary, the district court improperly focused solely on the preliminary injunction proceedings instead of analyzing the case as a whole. See NRDC v. Winter, 543 F.3d 1152, 1161 (9th Cir.2008). Considering the- totality of the circumstances, counsel’s “expertise with a complex statutory scheme,” Pirus v. Bowen, 869 F.2d 536, 541 (9th Cir.1989), and knowledge of vernal pool habitats was vital to the success of this litigation. Cf. Winter, 543 F.3d at 1161; Love v. Reilly, 924 F.2d 1492, 1496 (9th Cir.1991).

2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in reducing the lodestar to reflect California Native’s partial success. “A reduced fee award is appropriate if the relief, however significant, is limited in comparison to the scope of the litigation as a whole.” Hensley v. Eekerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 440, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). The jurisdictional discovery was not relevant to California Native’s successful claim, and the district court “provide[d] a clear and concise explanation to justify” its decision to estimate and exclude the attorney hours dedicated to that discovery. Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1205 (9th Cir.2013),

Because we affirm in part and reverse in part, each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM *

The California Native Plant Society, the Defenders of Wildlife, and the Butte Environmental Council (together, “California Native”) appeal the district court’s order granting their motion for attorneys’ fees, arguing that the court abused its discre *740 tion in reducing the amount of fees awarded. We have jurisdiction under 28. U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part and reverse in part.

1. The district court abused its discretion in denying California Native’s request for fees in excess of the statutory maximum rate; In finding that counsel’s environmental expertise was not necessary, the district court improperly focused solely on the preliminary injunction proceedings instead of analyzing the case as a whole. See NRDC v. Winter, 543 F.3d 1152, 1161 (9th Cir.2008). Considering the- totality of the circumstances, counsel’s “expertise with a complex statutory scheme,” Pirus v. Bowen, 869 F.2d 536, 541 (9th Cir.1989), and knowledge of vernal pool habitats was vital to the success of this litigation. Cf. Winter, 543 F.3d at 1161; Love v. Reilly, 924 F.2d 1492, 1496 (9th Cir.1991).

2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in reducing the lodestar to reflect California Native’s partial success. “A reduced fee award is appropriate if the relief, however significant, is limited in comparison to the scope of the litigation as a whole.” Hensley v. Eekerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 440, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). The jurisdictional discovery was not relevant to California Native’s successful claim, and the district court “provide[d] a clear and concise explanation to justify” its decision to estimate and exclude the attorney hours dedicated to that discovery. Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1205 (9th Cir.2013),

Because we affirm in part and reverse in part, each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

647 F. App'x 739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/california-native-plant-society-v-us-environmental-protection-agency-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack