Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01027/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01027-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4321 Review of Agency Action-Environment

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AND INFORMATION CENTER, a

California nonprofit

corporation, and

KLAMATH-SISKIYOU WILDLANDS

CENTER, an Oregon nonprofit

corporation,

CASE NO. CIV. S-04-1027 WBS GGH

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER RE: MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES 

JACK BLACKWELL, in his

official capacity as Regional

Forester for the Southwest

Pacific Region of the United

States Forest Service,

MARGARET BOLAND, in her

official capacity as Forest

Supervisor for the Klamath

National Forest, and UNITED

STATES FOREST SERVICE,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

The parties have stipulated to an agreement regarding

attorneys’ fees and costs in this matter. They now move this

court for an order approving the stipulations.

On May 26, 2004 plaintiffs Environmental Protection and

Case 2:04-cv-01027-WBS-GGH Document 59 Filed 01/18/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Information Center (EPIC) and Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center

(KS Wild) filed suit to challenge the Forest Service’s

development and implementation of the Westpoint Timber Sale. 

This court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ crossmotions for summary judgment, holding that defendants violated

the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), but not the

National Forest Management Act (“NFMA”). (May 5, 2005 Order 27-

28.) Additionally, this court permanently enjoined defendants

from proceeding with the Westpoint project. (Id. at 28.) The

parties both appealed, but subsequently moved for voluntary

dismissals pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). 

The Ninth Circuit granted these motions in September, 2005.

Prior to submitting the Stipulated Agreement,

plaintiffs moved on October 7, 2005 for an award of $80,344.13,

including $80,155 in attorney fees and $189.13 in expenses. They

based that motion on the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”),

which authorizes courts to award attorney fees to prevailing

parties in proceedings for judicial review of agency actions. 28

U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) (“[A] court shall award to a prevailing

party other than the United States fees and other expenses, in

addition to any costs awarded pursuant to subsection (a),

incurred by that party in . . . proceedings for judicial review

of agency action . . . unless the court finds that the position

of the United States was substantially justified or that special

circumstances make an award unjust.”); see also Gonzales v. Free

Speech Coalition, 408 F.3d 613, 618 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The

government bears the burden of demonstrating substantial

justification.”).

Case 2:04-cv-01027-WBS-GGH Document 59 Filed 01/18/06 Page 2 of 3
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

Plaintiffs now agree to accept the stipulated amount,

$65,491.40, payable to the Law Offices of Sharon E. Duggan, in

lieu of pursuing the previously filed motion for attorneys’ fees. 

This payment, to be made within thirty (30) business days of the

receipt of this order, “shall operate as a release of any and all

claims of attorneys’ fees and costs from Federal Defendants that

Plaintiffs may seek in this matter.” (Stipulated Agreement 3 at

¶ 3.) 

Because the government bears the burden of showing that

attorneys’ fees are unjustified under the EAJA and because it has

agreed to the terms above instead of opposing plaintiffs’ motion,

the award of attorneys’ fees, as described in the Stipulated

Agreement, is proper. The amount of the award, significantly

reduced from the amount originally sought by plaintiffs, is

reasonable. Moreover, as the parties note in their agreement,

“it is in the interests of judicial economy to avoid litigating a

request for attorneys’ fees and costs and to avoid diverting

agency resources from [the] administration of the National Forest

lands at issue in this litigation.” (Id. at 2.)

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the stipulated agreement

regarding attorneys’ fees and costs be and the same hereby is,

APPROVED, and plaintiffs’ are hereby awarded their attorneys’

fees and costs in the amount of $65,491.40. 

DATED: January 13, 2006

Case 2:04-cv-01027-WBS-GGH Document 59 Filed 01/18/06 Page 3 of 3