Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00991/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00991-6/pdf.json

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

---

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

LEAGUE FOR COASTAL PROTECTION, et

al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary of the

Interior, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-0991-CW

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO STAY

PENDING APPEAL

AND GRANTING

PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION TO ENFORCE

FEE AWARDS 

On December 22, 2006, the Court awarded Plaintiffs $185,230.18

in interim attorneys' fees and costs under the Equal Access to

Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). On March 29, 2007,

the Court awarded Plaintiffs an additional $11,200 for their

attorney time incurred recovering attorneys' fees and costs. 

Defendants move, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62, to

stay the Court's orders awarding Plaintiffs attorneys' fees and

costs. Plaintiffs oppose that motion and have filed a motion to

enforce the fee awards. Defendants oppose Plaintiffs' motion. The

matter was decided on the papers. Having considered the parties'

Case 4:05-cv-00991-CW Document 86 Filed 07/02/07 Page 1 of 7
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

papers, the Court denies Defendants' motion and grants Plaintiffs'

motion.

BACKGROUND

On August 31, 2005, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for

summary judgment, finding that Defendants had failed to comply

fully with the National Environmental Policy Act. Defendants filed

a timely notice of appeal. However, Defendants successfully moved

to stay that appeal, pending the outcome of Amber Resources Co. v.

United States. Plaintiffs state that, based on the proceedings in

Amber Resources, it is unlikely that the appeal of this Court's

summary judgment order will be resolved until at least 2009, if not

later. 

On December 22, 2006, the Court ordered Defendants forthwith

to pay Plaintiffs $185,230.18 in interim attorneys' fees and costs. 

They did not. On February 20, 2007, Defendants filed a notice of

appeal of that order. Approximately a month later, the Court

awarded Plaintiffs an additional $11,200, again rejecting

Defendants' argument that any request for attorneys' fees and costs

was premature because an appeal is pending. Defendants also filed

a notice of appeal of that order. They have not paid Plaintiffs

any of the $196,430.18 award to which Plaintiffs are entitled.

DISCUSSION

Defendants argue that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 62, they are entitled to a stay of the Court's awards of

attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs disagree and argue that the

Court should, once again, order Defendants to pay their attorneys'

fees and costs.

Case 4:05-cv-00991-CW Document 86 Filed 07/02/07 Page 2 of 7
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

Rule 62 addresses a stay of proceedings to enforce a judgment. 

Subdivision (d) of the Rule provides that, subject to certain

exceptions, when an appeal is taken, the appellant may obtain a

stay of execution by posting a supersedeas bond: "a party taking an

appeal from the District Court is entitled to a stay of a money

judgment as a matter of right if he posts a bond in accordance with

Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d)." Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Am.

Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc., 87 S. Ct. 1, 3 (1966). 

Subdivision (e) of the Rule provides that, when an appeal is taken

by the United States "or by direction of any department of the

Government of the United States and the operation or enforcement of

the judgment is stayed, no bond, obligation, or other security

shall be required from the appellant." Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(e). 

Some courts have interpreted Rules 62(d) and (e) together,

concluding that, when the United States moves for a stay of a money

judgment pending appeal, it is entitled to a stay as a matter of

right, and is not required to post a bond. See, e.g., Hoban v.

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Auth., 841 F.2d 1157, 1159

(D.C. Cir. 1988) (finding one must read Rule 62(e) "in tandem with"

Rule 62(d)); In re Mgndichian, 2003 WL 23358199 (C.D. Cal.). Other

courts have not. In In re Westwood Plaza Apartments, Ltd., 150

B.R. 163, 166 (E.D. Tex. 1993), for example, the court concluded,

"Subdivision (e) is complete and not dependent on subdivision (d).

The second condition of subdivision (e) is not worded as to provide

an appeal as a matter of right as the first sentence to

subdivision (d) does. It only states that a bond need not be

posted if a stay is granted in favor of the United States." But,

Case 4:05-cv-00991-CW Document 86 Filed 07/02/07 Page 3 of 7
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

1

Although Defendants provided a copy of this unpublished order

with their moving papers, Plaintiffs do not address it in their

papers. 

4

as Defendants point out, it appears that the weight of authority

concludes that the United States is entitled to a stay of a money

judgment as a matter of right. 

Plaintiffs do not argue otherwise. Indeed, Plaintiffs do not

address whether Rules 62(d) and (e) should be read together. 

Rather, they argue that the Court's award of attorneys' fees and

costs is not a money judgment and, therefore, there is no stay as a

matter of right. They note that, in Poole v. Rourke, 779 F. Supp.

1546, 1560 (E.D. Cal. 1991), the court concluded that EAJA fee

awards are "more akin to specific relief than to money damages,"

because they are necessarily incidental to efforts to secure other

relief. And, in Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 145

F.R.D. 553, 561 (N.D. Cal. 1993), the court found that the stay as

a matter of a right for money judgments provided in Rule 62(d) does

not apply to a fee award that is "more closely analogous to an

injunctive decree than it is to an award of money damages." 

Nonetheless, although these cases support Plaintiffs' argument,

they are not directly on point. 

In re Mgndichian, cited by Defendants, is more on point.1

There, the United States sought a stay of the court's order

awarding the petitioner attorneys' fees. The court concluded that

the government was entitled to a stay pending appeal as a matter of

right and stayed its order until appellate proceedings were

resolved and final. 2003 WL 23358199, *2. This case, however, is

Case 4:05-cv-00991-CW Document 86 Filed 07/02/07 Page 4 of 7
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 5

not binding on the Court. More importantly, In re Mgndichian does

not address whether an attorneys' fees award is a money judgement

under Rule 62. It is not clear whether that issue was even raised

before the court. Therefore, In re Mgndichian is not persuasive

concerning whether the attorneys' fees and cost award is subject to

the stay as a matter of right provision of Rule 62(d). 

Although Plaintiffs have cited no case that finds that

attorneys' fees and costs, such as those awarded here, are not a

money judgment under Rule 62, the cases they cite support their

argument, which the Court finds persuasive. Defendants cite no

case requiring the Court to find otherwise. The Court will not

apply the term "money judgment" so broadly as to encompass

attorneys' fees and costs that were incurred while seeking the

injunctive relief at issue in this case. See Stone, 145 F.R.D. at

558-61 (contrasting contempt order imposing fines with "money

damages" subject to a Rule 62(d) stay as a matter of right). 

Following Stone's recognition that monetary relief responsive to

equitable concerns is not subject to Rule 62(d)'s stay as a matter

of right, the Court finds that a stay as a matter of right is not

warranted here. 

Nonetheless, a discretionary stay may be warranted; Defendants

argue that it is. The Supreme Court instructs that the factors

regulating the issue of a stay are as follows: 

(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that

he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the

applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay;

(3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the

other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the

public interest lies.

Case 4:05-cv-00991-CW Document 86 Filed 07/02/07 Page 5 of 7
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 6

Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987). As the Ninth

Circuit explains, "The standard for evaluating stays pending appeal

is similar to that employed by district courts in deciding whether

to grant a preliminary injunction." Lopez v. Heckler, 713 F.2d

1432, 1435 (9th Cir. 1983).

In awarding Plaintiffs attorneys' fees and costs under EAJA,

the Court found that Defendants' position was not substantially

justified; Defendants have not made a strong showing that they are

likely to succeed on appeal. Nor have they raised any "serious

legal questions" as to the propriety of the Court's summary

judgment ruling. See Lopez, 713 F.2d at 1435. Defendants'

speculation that they may not be able to recover fees and costs

paid to Plaintiffs' attorneys in the event of a successful appeal

does not establish irreparable harm. The balance of hardships does

not tip in Defendants' favor. 

A stay is not warranted. The Court will not exercise its

discretion to grant Defendants' request for a stay pending appeal. 

Nor will it require Plaintiffs to post a bond as a prerequisite to

receiving their fee awards. Unlike Defendants' motion for a stay,

Plaintiffs' motion for enforcement of the awards of attorneys' fees

and costs has merit. The Court again orders Defendants forthwith

to pay Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion for Stay Pending

Appeal of Awards of Attorneys' Fees and Costs (Docket No. 73) is

DENIED. Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Fee Awards (Docket No. 75)

Case 4:05-cv-00991-CW Document 86 Filed 07/02/07 Page 6 of 7
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 7

is GRANTED. Within thirty days from the date of this order,

Defendants shall pay Plaintiffs' attorneys $196,430.18.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 7/2/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00991-CW Document 86 Filed 07/02/07 Page 7 of 7