Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-00499/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-00499-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1365 Environmental Matters

---

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

- 1 - 02cv0499-IEG (AJB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN DIEGO BAYKEEPER; SURFRIDER

FOUNDATION; AMERICAN CANOE

ASSOCIATION; and DIVERS AGAINST

POLLUTERS,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 02-CV-0499 - IEG (AJB)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART APPLICATION

FOR ATTORNEY FEES, EXPERTWITNESS FEES, AND OTHER

EXPENSES BY PLAINTIFF

“DIVERS AGAINST POLLUTERS”

[Doc. No. 50]

vs.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE;

ROBERT M. GATES, in his capacity as

Secretary of the U.S. Department of Defense;

U.S. NAVY; RAY MABUS, in his capacity

as Secretary of the Navy; U.S. MARINE

CORPS; JAMES T. CONWAY, in his

capacity as Commandant of the U.S. Marine

Corps; and COL. NICHOLAS F. MARANO,

in his capacity as Commanding Officer of

U.S. Marine Corp Base Camp Pendleton,

Defendants.

On May 6, 2010, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Terminate Consent Decree in this

case and dismissed the case with prejudice. [Doc. No. 45]. At the same time, the Court retained limited

jurisdiction to consider the issue of attorney fees and expert-witness fees, should the parties not be

able to resolve the question by themselves. [Id.]. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Divers Against

Polluter’s Application for Attorney Fees, Expert-Witness Fees, and Other Expenses, filed on July 6,

2010, and seeking recovery of all attorney fees, expert-witness fees, and other litigation expenses

Case 3:02-cv-00499-IEG-AJB Document 55 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 4
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

1

 The factual and procedural history of this case is well-known to the Court and the parties, and

need not be repeated herein.

2

 This amount includes $28.68 for a courier to overnight the compliance materials to the expert,

$2,657.64 for the expert review of the documents by Carpenter Environmental Associates, and

$612.50 in attorney fees for time spent reviewing the compliance report and the expert’s memo.

3

 Section XI.D of the Consent Decree provides: “Nothing in this Consent Decree restricts or

otherwise compromises Plaintiffs’ right to request reimbursement for attorney fees and costs incurred

to monitor and to enforce Defendants’ compliance with this Consent Decree. Defendants reserve any

and all defenses to such claims.”

- 2 - 02cv0499-IEG (AJB)

incurred in connection with the oversight of Defendants’ compliance with the Consent Decree and the

opposition to Defendants’ motion to terminate. Defendants filed an opposition, and Plaintiff replied.

The Court subsequently took the motion under submission pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1).

Having considered the parties’ arguments, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court

GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion.1

DISCUSSION

The expenses for which Plaintiff seeks recovery can generally be divided into four categories:

(1) those incurred in reviewing Defendants’ latest compliance report; (2) those incurred in reviewing

Defendant’s motion to terminate; (3) those incurred in opposing Defendants’ motion to terminate; and

(4) those incurred in bringing this application. The Court addresses each category in turn.

I. Expenses incurred in reviewing Defendants’ latest compliance report

First, Plaintiff seeks to recover $3,298.82 incurred in reviewing Defendants’ latest semi-annual

compliance report.2 The Clean Water Act, under which the Consent Decree in this case was entered,

allows the Court to award costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees)

to any substantially prevailing party. 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d). In entering the Consent Decree in this case,

the Court specifically noted that Plaintiffs may seek to recover attorney fees and costs incurred in

monitoring Defendants’ compliance.3 Plaintiff indicates, and Defendants do not substantively dispute,

that in the past Defendants had agreed that this provision allowed Plaintiffs to recover the expenses

incurred in reviewing Defendants’ semi-annual compliance reports. See also Pennsylvania v.

Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 560 (1986) (concluding that work

done after the consent decree was entered pursuant to the Clean Air Act was compensable).

Accordingly, having reviewed Plaintiff’s submissions as to their latest review and not finding any

Case 3:02-cv-00499-IEG-AJB Document 55 Filed 08/09/10 Page 2 of 4
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

4

 This amount includes 0.50 hours spent on initially reviewing and analyzing the termination

letter ($175.00 in attorney fees), 1.50 hours spent in meeting with Plaintiffs’ expert regarding the

termination letter ($525.00), 1.50 hours spent in meeting with a co-Plaintiff to discuss the termination

letter ($525.00), and a follow-up phone call to Plaintiffs’ expert on the same topic ($87.50).

5

 The mistake involved erroneously billing additional $700.00 for travel to/from and

appearance in court on the motion to terminate.

- 3 - 02cv0499-IEG (AJB)

improprieties in Plaintiff’s billing, the Court agrees that Plaintiff is entitled to recover $3,298.82.

II. Expenses incurred in reviewing Defendants’ motion to terminate

There is also little dispute that Plaintiff should be able to recover $1,312.50 incurred in

reviewing Defendants’ motion to terminate the Consent Decree.4 In their motion to terminate,

Defendants asked the Court to terminate the Consent Decree and to dismiss the action with prejudice.

However, before the Consent Decree could be terminated, there had to have been compliance or

substantial compliance with its relevant provisions over the preceding 12 months. Accordingly,

Plaintiffs properly had to spend time to review Defendants’ motion to terminate to ensure that there

was the requisite level of compliance by Defendants. Thus, finding no improprieties in Plaintiff’s

billing, the Court agrees that Plaintiff is entitled to recover $1,312.50.

III. Expenses incurred in opposing Defendants’ motion to terminate

Defendants, however, vigorously dispute Plaintiff’s attempt to recover $2,003.25 incurred in

opposing Defendants’ motion to terminate. According to Defendants, a review of Defendants’ motion

to terminate should have been sufficient for Plaintiffs to realize that Defendants are entitled to have

the Consent Decree terminated and the case dismissed with prejudice, and therefore there was no need

to oppose the motion. Plaintiff, on the other hand, argues the opposition to the motion to terminate

assisted all Plaintiffs in narrowing the scope of the dispute over the issue of termination, allowed for

the Court to retain limited jurisdiction to consider this application for fees, and therefore should be

compensable. Plaintiff concedes, however, that there was a mistake in its billing, and therefore now

only seeks to recover $1,303.25 for opposing Defendants’ motion to terminate.5

Having reviewed the parties’ arguments, the Court agrees that Plaintiff should be able to

recover the expenses incurred in opposing Defendants’ motion to terminate. In opposing the motion

to terminate, Plaintiffs raised valid concerns over Defendants’ remaining non-compliances that,

although not sufficient to keep the Consent Decree going, nonetheless could have amounted to

Case 3:02-cv-00499-IEG-AJB Document 55 Filed 08/09/10 Page 3 of 4
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

6

 Plaintiff initially asked for $2,482.00, which included $1,050.00 for drafting the initial fee

application, $1,050.00 for drafting the reply and attending the hearing, and $382.00 for Westlaw.

However, because the parties did not have to appear for a hearing on the motion, the Court subtracted

half of the expenses allocated for drafting the reply and attending the hearing ($525.00). 

7

 To the extent Defendants seek to challenge this recovery under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 68, they may now do so by an appropriate motion.

- 4 - 02cv0499-IEG (AJB)

separate violations of the Clean Water Act. Accordingly, Plaintiffs appropriately sought guidance from

the Court, fearing that they would never be able to remedy those non-compliances if this case was

dismissed with prejudice. Although the Court ultimately rejected this view, the Court agrees that those

efforts can properly be viewed as Plaintiffs’ monitoring of Defendants’ compliance with the Consent

Decree. Therefore, the Court agrees that Plaintiff is entitled to recover $1,303.25.

IV. Expenses incurred in bringing the application for recovery of fees

Finally, Plaintiff seeks recovery of expenses incurred in bringing this fee application. “Time

spent completing the fee petition is compensable.” Envtl. Prot. Info. Ctr., Inc. v. Pacific Lumber Co.,

229 F. Supp. 2d 993, 1007 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (citing Thompson v. Gomez, 45 F.3d 1365 (9th Cir.

1995), and Gates v. Rowland, 39 F.3d 1439 (9th Cir. 1994)). Moreover, recoverable “attorney fees”

can properly include reasonable charges for computer-based legal research. See Trustees of Const.

Industry & Laborers Health & Welfare Trust v. Redland Ins. Co., 460 F.3d 1253, 1258-59 (9th Cir.

2006). Accordingly, the Court agrees that Plaintiff is entitled to recover $1,957.00.6

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff

Divers Against Polluters’ application for recovery of attorney fees and expert-witness fees, which

include: (1) $3,298.82 incurred in reviewing Defendants’ latest semi-annual compliance report; (2)

$1,312.50 incurred in reviewing Defendants’ motion to terminate the Consent Decree; (3) $1,303.25

incurred in opposing Defendants’ motion to terminate; and (4) $1,957.00 incurred in bringing this fee

application. Plaintiff has also agreed to reduce the amount it is seeking by $1,500 as a showing of

good faith. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover $6,371.57 in fees.7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 9, 2010

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:02-cv-00499-IEG-AJB Document 55 Filed 08/09/10 Page 4 of 4