Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_98-cv-00086/USCOURTS-cand-3_98-cv-00086-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 21:841 Forfeiture Property-Drugs

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MARIN ALLIANCE FOR MEDICAL

MARIJUANA, and LYNETTE SHAW,

Defendants. /

No. C 98-0086 CRB

ORDER DENYING ATTORNEYS’ FEES

The Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana (“MAMM”) moves for an attorneys’ fee

award under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). See Motion for

Attorneys’ Fees (dkts. 325, 325-1). The government responds that MAMM was not the

prevailing party in this litigation. Given the unique procedural posture of this case, the Court

agrees, concludes that this matter is suitable for resolution without oral argument under Civil

Local Rule 7-1(b), and DENIES the motion for attorneys’ fees. 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The government moved for an injunction against MAMM’s sale of marijuana in

January 1998. See Opp’n (dkt. 326) at 2. The Court granted summary judgment to the

government and permanently enjoined MAMM’s dispensary in 2002. See id. The Ninth

Circuit affirmed the Court’s judgment in June 2008. See USCA Memo (dkt. 259). The time

to file a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court expired ninety days later. See Al-Harbi

v. INS, 284 F.3d 1080, 1084 (9th Cir. 2002).

Case 3:98-cv-00086-CRB Document 331 Filed 08/05/16 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

MAMM moved for reconsideration in June 2015, arguing that the Court should

dissolve the permanent injunction under Rule 60(b). See Reconsideration Motion (dkt. 326)

(“Due to changed circumstances since the issuance of the injunction in May, 1998, said

injunction is no longer equitable, is against public interest, and is not legally justified . . . . As

a separate and distinct legal basis for dissolution, the injunction is no longer enforceable

pursuant to Section 538.”). The Court denied the motion for reconsideration, but noted the

obvious restrictions that Section 538 placed on the Department of Justice. See Order

Denying Motion to Dissolve Permanent Injunction (dkt. 277). MAMM now moves for

attorneys’ fees related to its Rule 60(b) Motion under the EAJA. See Motion for Attorneys’

Fees; 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The EAJA created an exception to the American rule requiring parties to bear their

own attorney’s fees. See Hardisty v. Astrue, 592 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2010). 

“Eligibility for a fee award in any civil action requires: (1) that the claimant be a prevailing

party; (2) that the Government's position was not substantially justified; (3) that no special

circumstances make an award unjust; and, (4) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B), that

any fee application be submitted to the court within 30 days of final judgment in the action

and be supported by an itemized statement.” See Comm’r, I.N.S. v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 158,

110 S. Ct. 2316, 2319, 110 L. Ed. 2d 134 (1990).

III. DISCUSSION

The Ninth Circuit has stated that “a plaintiff was not a prevailing party when he

obtained no relief, only a favorable judicial statement of law in the course of litigation that

result[ed] in judgment against the plaintiff.” See Citizens For Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t

of Agr., 567 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U.S. 755, 763, 107

S. Ct. 2672, 2677, 96 L. Ed. 2d 654 (1987)). Here, MAMM’s Rule 60(b) motion was denied,

although MAMM did receive a “favorable judicial statement of law” related to Section 538. 

See id.; Order Denying Motion to Dissolve Permanent Injunction (dkt. 277). Citizens For

Better Forestry and Hewitt thus squarely foreclose an EAJA fee award in this case. See id.

Case 3:98-cv-00086-CRB Document 331 Filed 08/05/16 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court concludes—based on the unique procedural posture of this case—that

MAMM has failed to establish its entitlement to an EAJA attorney fee award. The Court

DENIES the motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2016 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:98-cv-00086-CRB Document 331 Filed 08/05/16 Page 3 of 3