Natural Resources Defense Council v. Locke
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33343
N.D. Cal.2011Background
- NRDC sued to enforce Magnuson-Stevens Act rebuilding obligations for Pacific Coast groundfish and related procedures.
- Court granted NRDC relief, invalidating 2009-2010 Specifications and remanding for revised rebuilding to the shortest time possible.
- NRDC prevailed on core EAJA issues; Defendants voluntarily dismissed their appeal after remand.
- NRDC sought $528,087.43 in attorney fees and expenses under EAJA; court awarded $505,841.41 after reductions.
- Court found defendants’ positions not substantially justified and NRDC’s hours/rates reasonable with billing judgment and adjustments.
- NRDC’s fee recovery included comment work and certain administrative expenses tied to the remand and subsequent administrative proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NRDC is entitled to EAJA fees | NRDC prevailed and Defendants’ position lacked substantial justification. | Defendants contested the amount and reasonableness of fees and sought reductions. | NRDC entitled to EAJA fees at reasonable rates and hours. |
| Reasonableness of hourly rates and market rates | Rates were reasonable and allowed at market rates due to specialized environmental expertise. | Rates should be cut and some rates disallowed based on comparisons and cases. | NRDC awarded requested market rates; no across-the-board reductions warranted. |
| Reasonableness of hours and billing judgment | Hours were carefully reviewed; 1,000+ hours omitted; 10% across-the-board cut applied. | Additional reductions for block billing and limited success warranted. | Hours and expense recovery reasonable; block-billing reduction not warranted; billing judgment respected. |
| Recoverability of comment work and related expenses | Comment work and associated expenses were necessary to exhaust administrative remedies and prevail. | Comment work should be limited or excluded from recovery. | Comment work and related expenses recoverable under EAJA; full expenses awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. v. Marolf, 277 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2002) (substantial justification standard for EAJA)
- Li v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2007) (agency position not substantially justified if contrary to clearly established law)
- Love v. Reilly, 924 F.2d 1492 (9th Cir. 1991) (environmental specialty supports enhanced EAJA rates)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. Supreme Court 1983) (reasonable extent of fee compensation and related reductions)
- Jean v. Nelson, 496 U.S. 154 (U.S. Supreme Court 1990) (overall litigation approach in EAJA analysis)
- Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (U.S. Supreme Court 1991) (EAJA recoveries for administrative work within district court retention)
- Nadarajah v. Holder, 569 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2009) (recoverability of administrative work and related expenses under EAJA)
- Flores v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 562 (9th Cir. 1995) (use of related legal theories and core facts in EAJA analysis)