Case Name: AUDUBON SOCIETY OF PORTLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-19
Citations: 573 F. App'x 640
Docket Number: No. 12-35988
Parties: AUDUBON SOCIETY OF PORTLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 573
Pages: 640–641

Head Matter:
AUDUBON SOCIETY OF PORTLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-35988.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2014.
Filed May 19, 2014.
David A. Bahr, Bahr Law Offices, P.C., Eugene, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Kevin C. Danielson, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, John Samuel Koppel, Leonard Schaitman, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants Appellee.
Before: GOODWIN, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Audubon Society of Portland ("Audubon") appeals following the district court's judgment in Audubon's action against the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service, assigning error to the order awarding Audubon attorneys' fees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. See Barjon v. Dalton, 132 F.3d 496, 500 (9th Cir.1997). We affirm.
The district court's award of attorneys' fees was not an abuse of discretion. Courts calculate attorneys' fees according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community. See id. "Generally, the relevant community is the forum in which the district court sits." Id. Although the district court is located in Portland, Oregon, its jurisdiction includes the entire state of Oregon. Because Audubon did not provide satisfactory evidence showing that Portland was the appropriate community for purposes of establishing its attorneys' hourly rates, the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying Oregon statewide rates.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.