NOT FOR PUB LIC ATION UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
B ESS B AIR ; TRISHA LEE LOTUS; ) No. 15-15674 B R U C E EDWARD S; JEFFREY ) HEDIN; DAVID SPR

E EN; ) D.C . No. 3:14-c v-03422-WHA ENVIR ONM ENTAL PR OTEC TION ) INFORM ATION C ENTER , a non- ) M EM OR

A NDUM * profit c o rporation; C ENTER FOR ) B IOLOGIC AL DIVER SITY, a non- ) profit c o rporation; C A LIFOR NIANS ) FOR ALTER NATIVES TO ) TOXIC S, a

non-profit c o rporation, ) ) Pla intiffs-Appe l la

nts, )

) v. ) ) C ALIFOR

NIA DEPAR T M ENT OF ) TR A NSPOR TATION; M ALC OLM ) DOUGHER TY, in his offic i a l ) c a pa c ity a s Dire c tor of the C a lifornia ) De pa rtm e nt of Tra

nsporta tion, )

) De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s , ) )

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia W illia m Alsup, Distric t Judge , Pre siding 

# FIL ED
MAR 27 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h

13, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ a

nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s, a nd STATON, ** Distric t Judge
. B e ss B a ir a

n d a num be r of othe r pe rsons a

nd e ntitie s 1 (c olle c tive ly

“ B a ir” )
a ppe a l the distric t c o urt’ s de nia l of a ttorne y ’ s fe e s 2 to B a ir a ga inst theC a lifornia De pa rtm e nt of Tra

nsporta tion a nd its Dire c tor, M a lc olm

Doughe rty , in his offic ia l
c a pa c ity , (he re a fte r c o lle c tive ly “ C a ltra ns” ) on the ba sis, a

m ong othe r things, tha

t the m otion for fe e s wa s not file d in a tim e ly fa shion. 3 W e a ffirm
. Pursua nt to a stipula tion by the pa rtie s to thea c tion, on De c e m be r 4, 2014, the d istric t c o urt dismisse d the a c t ion without pre

judic e on the ba sis tha

t “ the re is no fina l a ge nc y

a c tion subje c t to judic ia l re vie w” and B a ir’ s c l a im s we re , the re fore , not “ ripe for a d

judic ation.” That wa s a

fina l orde r. Se e Mc Guc k in v . Smith , 974 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th C ir. 1992), ov e rrule d on othe r grounds by , W MX Te c hs., Inc

.

** T he Honora

ble Jose phine L. Sta

ton, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.
1 Those are : Trisha

Le e Lotus, B ruc e Edwa

rds, Je ffre y

He din, Da

vid Spre e n, Environm e nta l Prote c tion Inform ation C e nte r, C e nte r for B iologic a l Dive rsity , a nd C a lifornia ns for Alte rnative s to Toxic s. 2 The m otion wa s m a de pursua nt to theprovisions of the Equa l Ac c e ss to Justic e Ac t, 28 U.S.C . § 2412 (“ EAJA” ).

3 W e ne e d not, a

nd do not, c onside r the distric t c ourt’ s othe r ba se s for de ny ing them otion. 2v . Mille r , 104 F.3d 1133 (9th C ir. 1997) (e n ba n c ); se ealso Monte

s v . Unite d State s , 37 F.3d 1347, 1350 (9th C ir. 1994). M ore ove r, be c a use the unripe a c tion
wa s dismisse d upon thestipula tion of thepa

rtie s a nd without pre

judic e , it wa s not
a ppe a la ble
. Se e W

a rd v . Apple

Inc
. , 791 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th C ir. 2015); Monte s , 37 F.3d a t 1350. In short, this stipula te d judgm e nt wa s both fina l a nd
nona ppe a la ble whe n e nte re d; put otherwise , a s to this ty pe of judgm e nt4 the re wa s no “p ossibility that the judgm e nt wa s ‘ ope n to a tta c k’ ” onc e it wa s e nt e re d. Hoa Hong Van v . Barnhart , 483 F.3d 600, 610 (9th C ir. 2007). Thus, the tim e to file a
m otion for fe e s be ga

n to run on De c e m

be r 4, 2014, a

nd e xpire d fourte e n da

y s la te r if the EAJA did not a

pply , 5 or thirty

da y s la te r if it did. 6 B a ir, howe ve r, sugge sts tha t the judgm e nt wa s not fina l be c a use the Fe de ra l Highwa y Adm inistra

tion ha d the right to interve ne 7 and, thus, had a right to a ppe a l. Not so. No doubt the

re wa s an inte rve ntion right be fore the a c tion wa s volunta rily dism isse d without pre

j udic e to a

ny pa rty . Howe ve r, onc e the c a se wa s dismisse d

4 He re , a l l of the pa

rtie s spe c ific a l ly

a gre e d tha t “ the re is no fina l a ge n c y a c tion subje c t to judic ia l re vie w, a nd no c la im s hav e y e t a c c rue d for sta tute of lim ita tion purpose s.” The y a d d e d: “ no pa rty he re to wa ive s a

ny c l a im or de fe nse , and c an a sse rt a ny and a l l c la i m s or de fe nse s in a ny subse que nt le ga l c h a lle n ge .”
5 Se e N.D. C a l. C ivil L. R . 54-5(a ); se ealso Fe d. R
. C iv. P. 54(d)(2)(B )(i).
6 Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2412(d)(1)(B ).
7 Se e 23 U.S.C . § 327(d)(3). 3without pre

judic e a s unripe and without a ny wa ive r of c la im s or de fe nse s, the re
wa s nothing le ft to inte rve n e in or to a p pe a l from
. Se e Ynigue

z v . Arizona , 939 F.2d 727, 731 (9th C ir. 1991); s e ealso Diamond v . C harle s , 476 U.S. 54, 68, 106 S. C t. 1697, 1706, 90 L. Ed. 2d 48 (1986). Of c ourse , the Fe de ra l Highwa y Adm inistra

tion ha d not e ve n atte m

p te d to inte rve ne be fore the dism issa l without pre j udic e wa s issue d. Fina lly , B a ir a s se rts tha

t the distric t c ourt should ha ve grante d e quita

ble tolling. Howeve r, to obta in tha t B a ir ha d to, a

t le a st, show duedilige nc e and tha t

“ som e e x tra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e stood in [B a i r’ s] wa

y .” Pac ev . DiGuglie lmo , 544 U.S. 408, 418, 125 S. Ct. 1807, 1814, 161 L. Ed. 2d 669 (2005). Tha t B a ir did not do. B a ir ha s shown “what is a t be s t a ga rde n va rie ty c la i m of e xc u sa

ble
ne gle c t,” if tha

t . Irw in v
. De

p’t of Ve te rans Affairs , 498 U.S. 89, 96, 111 S. Ct. 453, 458, 112 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1990). In fa c t, B a ir’ s da

t e of filing would ha

ve be e n tim e ly only if B a ir pre v a ile d on thre e de bat a ble points: the

EAJA a pplie d to C a ltra ns, whic h is not itse lf a

Unite d State s e ntity (a

proposition tha

t ha d not be e n
a dopte d by

any c ourt a t tha t tim e ); the stipula

te d volunta

ry dism issa l on theba sis of unripe ne ss did not re sult in a fina l judgm e nt a

nd wa s a ppe a la ble ; a nd C a ltra ns’ tim e to a ppe a l (a nd B a ir’ s) wa s c ontrolle d by Fe de ra l R

ule of Appe l late Proc e dure 4(a )(1)(B ). B a ir ran the risk of fa ilure to pre va il on a ll of thosepoints. Tha t wa s brav e pe rha

ps; it wa s not diligent, a

nd a tim e ly filing wa s not pre c lude d by som e 4e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e . In fine , the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion whe n

it de nie d B a ir’ s
m otion for a

ttorne y ’ s fe e s. Se e Bias v . Moy nihan , 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th C ir. 2007); s e e also Unite d State s v . Hink son , 585 F.3d 1247, 1261–63 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba nc ). AFFIRM ED.

5