Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04407/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04407-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

---

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

JOHN CRUDEN, 

Assistant Attorney General

SETH M. BARSKY, Chief

S. JAY GOVINDAN, Assistant Chief

DANIEL J. POLLAK, Trial Attorney

U.S. Department of Justice

Environment and Natural Resources Division

Wildlife and Marine Resources Section

Ben Franklin Station, P.O. Box 7611

Washington, D.C. 20044-7611

(202) 305-0201 (tel) 

(202) 305-0275 (fax)

Attorneys for Federal Defendants

[Additional counsel listed on signature page]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TED SOUZA; FRIENDS OF THE DEL 

NORTE; ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION INFORMATION 

CENTER, a non-profit corporation; and 

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL 

DIVERSITY, a non-profit corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION; MALCOM 

DOUGHTERY, in his official capacity as 

Director of the State of California 

Department of Transportation; the 

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES 

SERVICE; and EILEEN SOBECK,

1 in 

her official capacity as Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 3:13-cv-4407-JD

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER AS TO ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND 

COSTS 

 

1 Eileen Sobeck has been automatically substituted for Samuel D. Rauch pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

25(d). 

 

Case 3:13-cv-04407-JD Document 146 Filed 04/20/15 Page 1 of 7
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

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs, an individual and non-profit public interest organizations, filed an 

action on September 23, 2013, against the California Department of Transportation (“CalTrans”) 

and Malcolm Dougherty, in his official capacity as Director of CalTrans (collectively, the “State 

Defendants”); and against the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”), and Eileen Sobeck, 

in her official capacity as NMFS Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (collectively, the “Federal 

Defendants”), concerning a project proposed by CalTrans to modify U.S. Route 199 and State 

Route 197 at seven sites in Del Norte County, CA, along the Smith River (the “Proposed 

Project”), see Dkt. 1.;

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ Complaint asserts that the Plaintiffs filed this action in pursuit of 

their public interest objectives; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ Complaint asserted seven causes of action, all under the 

Administrative Procedure Act: (1) failure to adequately engage in Endangered Species Act 

(“ESA”) consultation (against NMFS); (2) failure to adequately engage in consultation under § 

305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (“MSA”) (against all 

Defendants); (3) failure to adequately engage in Wild and Scenic Rivers Act consultation 

(against the State Defendants); (4) failure to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 

pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) (against the State Defendants); (5) 

failure to prepare an adequate Environmental Assessment pursuant to NEPA (against the State 

Defendants); (6) failure to comply with the Department of Transportation Act as required by 

NEPA (against the State Defendants); and (7) failure to comply with NEPA, the ESA, the MSA, 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and the Department of Transportation Act (against all 

Defendants);

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction on March 19, 2014; 

STIPULATION AS TO ATT’YS’ FEES & COSTS—No. 3:13-cv-4407-JD Page 2

Case 3:13-cv-04407-JD Document 146 Filed 04/20/15 Page 2 of 7
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

WHEREAS, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction on May 2, 

2014 (the “PI Order”); 

WHEREAS, in response to the PI Order, on May 22, 2014, CalTrans agreed to request 

reinitiation of consultation with NMFS under Section 7 of the ESA concerning the Proposed 

Project’s potential impact on coho salmon threatened with extinction and their critical habitat 

and consultation with NMFS concerning the Proposed Project’s impact on Pacific salmon 

essential fish habitat under the MSA;

WHEREAS, following a conference with the Court, the parties entered into a stipulated 

order that inter alia provided for the injunction to remain in place and dismissed Plaintiffs’ 

claims without prejudice and subject to a tolling agreement, and the stipulated order was entered 

by the Court on July 9, 2014, see DKT. 97 (the “Stipulated Order”);

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ Complaint and other filings asserted that they filed this action for 

the purpose of advancing the public interest in requiring CalTrans and NMFS to meet their 

obligations under federal law to adequately assess the Proposed Project’s environmental impacts, 

including, without limitation, its impacts on the salmonids of the Smith River;

WHEREAS, Federal Defendants Answer and other filings asserted that they were and 

remain in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations concerning the Proposed Project;

WHEREAS, on September 26, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ 

Fees and Reimbursement of Costs Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Fees and Costs”); 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Fees and Costs included a proposed order seeking that 

the Court find State Defendants and Federal Defendants jointly and severally responsible for the 

payment of Plaintiffs’ claim for attorneys’ fees and costs; 

STIPULATION AS TO ATT’YS’ FEES & COSTS—No. 3:13-cv-4407-JD Page 3

Case 3:13-cv-04407-JD Document 146 Filed 04/20/15 Page 3 of 7
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

WHEREAS, Federal Defendants and Plaintiffs (collectively, the “Settlement Parties”), 

believe it is in the interests of judicial economy, the public interest, and the Settlement Parties’ 

interests to avoid further litigating Plaintiffs’ Motion for Fees and Costs;

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs represent that as a good faith effort to resolve Plaintiffs’ Motion 

for Fees and Costs, the law firm of COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP has waived all of 

its attorneys’ fees incurred in this action through the date of this Stipulation and Order;

THEREFORE, the Settlement Parties hereby stipulate to the following, subject to Court 

approval:

1. The Federal Defendants shall pay Plaintiffs the amount of $130,000 in settlement 

of Plaintiffs’ claim for an award of litigation costs incurred in this action to date, including 

$115,000 in attorneys’ fees, and $15,000 in other litigation costs, pursuant to the Equal Access to 

Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (the “Payment”). 

2. The Payment shall be made by the Federal Defendants via electronic funds 

transfer to Gross Law, P.C., in accordance with the payment information provided by Gross 

Law, P.C., for appropriate distribution. 

3. The Federal Defendants shall submit all necessary paper work for the processing 

of the Payment to the appropriate office(s) within ten (10) business days following entry of this 

Order.

4. Upon entry of this Order, the Federal Defendants shall be released of any and all 

claims for costs, including attorneys’ fees, incurred in this action through the date of this 

Stipulation and Order that Plaintiffs may have against any and all Federal Defendants. Plaintiffs 

reserve the right to seek additional fees and costs incurred subsequent to this Stipulation and 

Order. The Federal Defendants do not waive any right to contest any such fees claimed by 

STIPULATION AS TO ATT’YS’ FEES & COSTS—No. 3:13-cv-4407-JD Page 4

Case 3:13-cv-04407-JD Document 146 Filed 04/20/15 Page 4 of 7
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

Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ counsel, including the hourly rate, with the sole exception that Federal 

Defendants shall not argue that any such claims for fees is released by virtue of this Stipulation 

and Order. 

5. Within ten ( 10) business days after entry of this Order, Plaintiffs shall dismiss 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Fees and Costs with prejudice with respect to the claims for attorneys’ fees 

and costs against Federal Defendants and withdraw the Proposed Order (ECF No. 98-1) filed on 

September 26, 2014. 

6. Upon entry of this Order, the Federal Defendants cannot and will not be held 

jointly and severally liable for any remaining claims against the State Defendants for attorneys’ 

fees and costs incurred in this case, through and including the date of this Stipulation and Order.

7. No provision in this Stipulation and Order shall be interpreted as or constitute a 

commitment or requirement that the Federal Defendants obligate or pay funds in violation of the 

Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341, or any other law or regulation. 

8. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce and oversee compliance with the 

terms and conditions of this Stipulation and Order.

9. This Stipulation does not constitute an admission by any party to any fact, claim, 

assertion of violation of any statute or regulation, or defense in this lawsuit, including without 

limitation any claim to entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as any defense thereto. 

Accordingly, the Settlement Parties agree that this Stipulation has no precedential value as to 

attorneys’ fees and costs and shall not be used as evidence in any other attorneys’ fees litigation 

against any agency or officer of the Federal Government.

10. The Settlement Parties, by their duly authorized representatives, agree to this 

Stipulation.

STIPULATION AS TO ATT’YS’ FEES & COSTS—No. 3:13-cv-4407-JD Page 5

Case 3:13-cv-04407-JD Document 146 Filed 04/20/15 Page 5 of 7
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

11. The provisions of this Stipulation shall apply to and be binding upon the 

Settlement Parties including, but not limited to, their officers, directors, servants, employees, 

successors, and assigns.

12. This Stipulation constitutes the entire agreement of the Settlement Parties 

concerning the rights and obligations discussed herein. No other agreement shall govern the 

rights of the Settlement Parties with respect to the matters resolved by this Stipulation, except in 

accordance with the terms herein.

Dated: April 14, 2015

Respectfully Submitted, 

JOHN CRUDEN, 

Assistant Attorney General

SETH M. BARSKY, Chief

S. JAY GOVINDAN, 

Assistant Chief

/s/ Daniel Pollak 

DANIEL POLLAK

Trial Attorney 

U.S. Department of Justice

Environment & Natural Resources Division

Wildlife & Marine Resources Section

Ben Franklin Station, P.O. Box 7611

Washington, D.C. 20044-7611

(202) 305-0201 (tel)

(202) 305-0275 (fax)

daniel.pollak@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Federal Defendants

GROSS LAW

/s/ Stuart G. Gross (with permission)

STUART G. GROSS (#251019)

(sgross@gross-law.com)

STIPULATION AS TO ATT’YS’ FEES & COSTS—No. 3:13-cv-4407-JD Page 6

Case 3:13-cv-04407-JD Document 146 Filed 04/20/15 Page 6 of 7
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

The Embarcadero

Pier 9, Suite 100

San Francisco, CA 94111

t (415) 671-4628

f (415) 480-6688

Attorney for Plaintiffs

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge 

STIPULATION AS TO ATT’YS’ FEES & COSTS—No. 3:13-cv-4407-JD Page 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge James Donato

April 20, 2015

Case 3:13-cv-04407-JD Document 146 Filed 04/20/15 Page 7 of 7