Friends of the Everglades v. South Florida Water Management District
678 F.3d 1199
11th Cir.2012Background
- Miccosukee Tribe appeals district court denial of over $1.4 million in attorneys’ fees under 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d).
- District court denied fees because Tribe was not a prevailing party since the injunction was reversed on appeal.
- District court held no substantial prevailing status and equity did not require fees.
- Opinion recounts that trial court initially ruled for the Plaintiffs but the ruling was reversed on appeal.
- Tribe argues fees are warranted for catalyst effect from EPA rulemaking despite contrary outcome.
- Court affirms denial of fees on appeal, concluding no prevailing status and no equitable entitlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tribe was a prevailing or substantially prevailing party. | Tribe prevailed by injunction and EPA rule. | No prevailing status since injunction reversed; no final relief. | Not prevailing; no fee award. |
| Whether the EPA rulemaking’s catalytic effect suffices for fees. | Positive catalytic effect justifies fees. | Catalytic effect without court-ordered relief does not justify fees. | Catalytic effect alone insufficient. |
| Whether equity supports awarding fees despite lack of prevailing status. | Equity favors Tribe because EPA acted influenced by Water District. | Equity does not override lack of prevailing status. | Equity does not justify fees. |
| What is the proper standard and scope for fee awards under the Clean Water Act. | § 1365(d) allows fees for prevailing/substantially prevailing parties. | Requires actual relief or substantial success on merits. | Affirmed application of prevailing/substantial-prevailing standard and merits-based reasonableness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y, 421 U.S. 240 (U.S. 1975) (fee-shifting statutes; )
- Loggerhead Turtle v. County Council of Volusia Cnty., Fla., 307 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2002) (positive catalytic effect; 'whenever…appropriate')
- Tex. State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782 (U.S. 1989) (prevailing party definition; significance of successful relief)
- Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club, 463 U.S. 680 (U.S. 1983) ('appropriate' standard for fee awards in statutes)
- Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U.S. 755 (U.S. 1987) (prevailing party concept under fee-shifting)
- Falanga v. State Bar of Ga., 150 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 1998) (reversing award when appellate judgment altered relief)
- Chemical Mfrs. Ass'n v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 885 F.2d 1276 (5th Cir. 1989) (fee eligibility when advancing goals of statute)