South Yuba River Citizens League v. National Marine Fisheries Service
This text of 581 F. App'x 693 (South Yuba River Citizens League v. National Marine Fisheries Service) 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 *
The government appeals from an attorneys’ fee award of approximately $1.8 million for lengthy and complex environmental litigation. There is no dispute that the district court properly determined an award of fees was appropriate under the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(4), and that plaintiff achieved substantial results. We review the amount for abuse of discretion. Thomas v. City of Tacoma, 410 F.3d 644, 647 (9th Cir.2005).
The district court reduced the amount of fees originally claimed by 20%. The government argues that the district court failed to provide a sufficient explanation of its award. The plaintiffs made clear the basis for their claim, however, and the district court explained the reasons why it was deducting 20%. The court’s reasoning reflects that it independently reviewed the fee application to determine whether the deductions were adequate. The district court in this case also adequately addressed the government’s objections to the request, and accepted some of them. The process followed by the court was not in any material way similar to that which we disapproved of in Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir.1992), on which the government relies.
The government also contends that the court incorrectly awarded fees for work *694 related to claims under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) that had settled earlier, and for time responding to the standing argument of third parties. A careful review of the record reflects that there were no fees awarded for work done in the prior FOIA litigation. The few hours that plaintiffs were compensated for work on standing were justified by the needs of the litigation with the government.
AFFIRMED.
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
581 F. App'x 693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/south-yuba-river-citizens-league-v-national-marine-fisheries-service-ca9-2014.