Conservation Force v. Salazar
753 F. Supp. 2d 29
D.D.C.2010Background
- Plaintiffs seek attorneys' fees under ESA § 1540(g)(4) after district court dismissal of their suit challenging Secretary's processing of a wood bison petition and permit applications.
- Plaintiffs alleged the Secretary violated the ESA by failing to issue a 90-day finding on a downlisting petition and by delaying import-trophy permits for four individuals.
- The court dismissed the 12-month finding claim for lack of jurisdiction and held permit claims moot when permits were denied during litigation.
- Plaintiffs filed a notice of intent to sue in January 2009; the Secretary issued a 90-day finding in February 2009, before a merits adjudication.
- The court analyzed whether fees could be awarded under the catalyst theory for the 90-day finding and permit-processing claims, under ESA and related APA standards.
- Court concluded that neither claim met the catalyst thresholds and denied fees and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 90-day finding claim supports fees under catalyst theory | Pls. contends action prompted relief. | Salazar argues no substantial causation; moot before suit. | No fee award for 90-day finding. |
| Whether permit-processing claims are eligible for ESA fees | Claims under ESA mandate processing delays entitle fees. | Claims not cognizable under § 1540(g)(1); APA/EAJA applies. | ESA fee-shifting inapplicable; fees denied. |
| Whether catalyst theory applies to these ESA claims | Lawsuit was a substantial catalyst for relief. | Relief was not caused by the suit; actions occurred pre-suit. | Catalyst theory inapplicable; no fees. |
| Whether the court should apply APA/EAJA instead of ESA for fees | Fees could be recoverable under APA/EAJA if prevailing party. | APA/EAJA not applicable to catalyst relief; ESA governs. | No fees under APA/EAJA for these claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club, 463 U.S. 680 (U.S. 1983) (fee awards depend on some success under catalyst-like approach)
- Sierra Club v. EPA, 322 F.3d 718 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (three-threshold catalyst test for fees)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (reasonable attorney fees limited to successful claims)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home v. West Virginia Dep't of Health and Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (U.S. 2001) (catalyst theory; prevailing-party requirement clarified)
- Friends of Animals v. Salazar, 670 F. Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. 2009) (timing of agency action supports catalyst-fee award when relief occurs post-suit)
- Sierra Club v. Thomas, 828 F.2d 783 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (timeliness duties vs. discretionary acts in citizen suits)
- Biodiversity Legal Foundation v. Norton, 285 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2003) (non-discretionary duty required for ESA timeliness claims)