Resurrection Bay Conservation Alliance v. City of Seward
This text of 334 F. App'x 106 (Resurrection Bay Conservation Alliance v. City of Seward) 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiffs Resurrection Bay Conservation Alliance and Alaska Community Action on Toxics appeal the district court’s denial of an award of attorney fees, to which they assert they are statutorily entitled under the citizen-suit provisions of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d). Defendant City of Seward filed a cross-appeal seeking a partial reversal of the district court’s summary judgment ruling.
[107]*1071. In light of this Court’s recent ruling in Saint John’s Organic Farm v. Gem County Mosquito Abatement Dist., 574 F.3d 1054, 1058-65 (9th Cir.2009), as amended, we remand the district court’s judgement so that the district court may determine whether Plaintiffs were the prevailing parties, see id, at 1058-62, and if so, whether an award of fees is “appropriate,” applying the standards articulated. See id. at 1062-65.
2. We grant the City of Seward’s unopposed motion to dismiss its cross-appeal in Case No. 08-35440. We remand for the district court to determine whether to vacate its summary judgment ruling with respect to the permit requirement for the Small Boat Harbor.
JUDGMENT REMANDED; CROSS-APPEAL DISMISSED.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
334 F. App'x 106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/resurrection-bay-conservation-alliance-v-city-of-seward-ca9-2009.