331 P.3d 844
Mont.2014Background
- FWP closed wolf hunting and trapping in Park County as a December 10, 2012 action; public notice concerns were raised by several commissioners.
- CBU sued Jan. 2, 2013 asserting violations of Article II, §§ 8 and 9 (right to participate and know) and sought attorney’s fees and costs.
- A TRO and preliminary injunction were issued to bar enforcement and require reopening areas pending MT law compliance.
- HB 73 (Feb. 2013) prohibited such closures near national parks; wolf season expired Feb. 28, 2013; district court dismissed claims as moot on July 29, 2013.
- District court awarded CBU $14,728.90 in attorney’s fees and costs after finding CBU prevailed on constitutional claims.
- FWP appealed the attorney’s fees award, arguing no final merits judgment and nonsatisfaction of prevailing party standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did CBU prevail to justify attorney’s fees? | CBU prevailed by obtaining injunctive relief altering the situation. | Preliminary relief does not equate to prevailing on merits for fees. | Yes; CBU prevailed under § 2-3-221 MCA based on relief obtained. |
| Can fees be awarded for Article II, §8 claims? | §8 rights are closely linked to §9 rights; fees may be recoverable. | §2-3-221 applies specifically to §9 claims only. | Yes; the district court could award fees under both sections given intertwined claims. |
| Are Havre Daily News and related precedents controlling over Dreyer in this context? | Dreyer would be satisfied by moot relief; Havre supports prevailing-party outcome. | Dreyer governs: no final merits determination, no fees; | The court relied on Havre Daily News to find prevailing status; Dreyer distinguished by moot relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dreyer v. Bd. of Trs., 193 Mont. 95 (Mont. 1981) (premature attorney’s fees before final merits; injunctions preserve status quo)
- Havre Daily News, LLC v. City of Havre, 142 P.3d 864 (Mont. 2006) (mooting relief can establish prevailing party when relief sought is provided)
- Avanta Fed. Credit Union v. Shupak, 223 P.3d 863 (Mont. 2009) (prevailing party standard for fees; merits context)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Res., 532 U.S. 598 (U.S. 2001) (judicial imprimatur required to award fees on merits basis)
- Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1992) (prevailing on merits includes relief altering the legal relationship)
- Higher Taste, Inc. v. City of Tacoma, 717 F.3d 712 (9th Cir. 2013) (preliminary injunction can qualify as merits-based relief under certain criteria)