Idaho Conservation League v. Atlanta Gold Corporation, 1:11-cv-00161

Plaintiffs (Idaho Conservation League and Northwest Environmental Defense Center) sued Atlanta Gold under the Clean Water Act for arsenic and iron NPDES permit violations from a mine adit discharging to Montezuma Creek; prior proceedings and penalties dated back to 2005–2013.
In 2012 the court entered an injunction and a $2,000,000 penalty (final judgment later entered and case closed in 2013); compliance efforts involved a zero-valent iron passive treatment system with intermittent exceedances.
Plaintiffs moved to reopen the case in 2016 and sought civil contempt in 2017 after numerous documented arsenic and iron exceedances; the court held a two-day evidentiary hearing in April 2017.
The court found Atlanta Gold in civil contempt, ordered additional penalties (with a contempt amount later reduced from $251,000 to $125,500 after partial remediation), and retained jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs moved for attorney fees and litigation costs under 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d); Atlanta Gold did not oppose the fee motion, and Plaintiffs moved for default judgment on the fee request.
The court denied default-judgment relief, independently reviewed reasonableness of the requested fees and costs, and awarded a total of $129,465.76 (breakdown: $8,527.26 expert; $47,810.00 Lucas; $64,407.50 Hurlbutt; $8,721.00 Hawley).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether default judgment should be entered on the fee motion	Atlanta Gold’s failure to respond = consent under local rule; entry of default judgment for full requested amount	No response / not presented	Denied — court must independently assess reasonableness of fees under §1365(d) before entering judgment
Whether Plaintiffs are prevailing or substantially prevailing parties for fee eligibility	Plaintiffs secured reopening, a Second Injunction, penalties and contempt relief	No opposition presented	Granted — Plaintiffs are prevailing/substantially prevailing parties under §1365(d)
Whether a fee award is appropriate under §1365(d)	Fee award appropriate absent special circumstances; fees should be awarded	No opposition presented	Granted — no special circumstances made award unjust; awards "should be the rule rather than the exception"
Reasonableness of specific requested fees (expert and attorneys)	Seek $130,883.26 itemized (expert Kuipers; attorneys Lucas, Hurlbutt, Hawley)	No opposition presented to specifics	Awarded in part: full award to Kuipers, Lucas, Hawley; Hurlbutt reduced (1.8 hrs disallowed; 9 hrs billed at 50%); total $129,465.76 awarded

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (lodestar method; degree of success controls fee reasonableness)
Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 2008) (lodestar and adjustments guidance)
Ferland v. Conrad Credit Corp., 244 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2001) (factors beyond lodestar may justify adjustment)
Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992) (degree of success is critical in fee awards)
Saint John's Organic Farm v. Gem Cnty. Mosquito Abatement Dist., 574 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2009) (two-step test: prevailing party and appropriateness of fee under §1365(d))
Lau Ah Yew v. Dulles, 236 F.2d 415 (9th Cir. 1956) (district court discretion on default judgment)