Cobell v. Salazar
816 F. Supp. 2d 10
D.D.C.2011Background
- This case involves Cobell v. Salazar, a settled trust case, with Craven appealing the final judgment approving a $3.412 billion settlement.
- Plaintiffs sought an $8,306,439.93 Fed. R. App. P. 7 appeal bond against Craven, alleging various taxable costs and delays.
- Defendants argued costs taxable under Rule 39 only and that attorneys’ fees are not costs unless statutorily defined as such.
- The court previously addressed separate motions to impose bonds against Harvest Institute Freedmen Federation, Tanner-Brown, Warrior, Ford, and Villegas, all arising from their appeals.
- Plaintiffs estimated photocopying and binding costs at about $34,458.47; Craven contested these figures as overstated.
- The court denied all four motions for appeal bonds and withheld sanctions, though it ordered lead counsel to file a declaration addressing concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 7 bond scope includes attorneys’ fees. | Craven’s costs include attorney fees under EAJA as costs. | Costs under Rule 39 govern bonds; EAJA fees are not costs unless statute deems them so. | Attorneys’ fees are not taxable costs unless statute defines them as such; bond limited to Rule 39 costs. |
| Whether the court should impose bonds on nonparty appellants. | Bonds are appropriate to secure costs for delay and ensure payment. | No bond justified given limited taxable costs and ability to pay. | Court declined to impose any appeal bonds. |
| Whether sanctions against plaintiffs for alleged bad faith are warranted. | Plaintiffs acted in good faith; sanctions unnecessary. | Misleading citations and arguments warrant sanctions. | Sanctions not imposed at this time; lead counsel ordered to file a declaration addressing concerns. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re American President Lines, 779 F.2d 714 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (costs under Rule 7 limited to Rule 39 costs and statutorily-defined attorney fees)
- Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985) (attorney’s fees may be costs only if statutes define them as costs)
- Montgomery & Assocs., Inc. v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n, 816 F.2d 783 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (attorneys’ fees may be costs only if statute deems them costs)
- Adsani v. Miller, 139 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 1998) (non-party objector cases cited by plaintiffs; non-class context)