Sierra Club v. Jackson
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28750
| D.D.C. | 2013Background
- Sierra Club sued EPA and Administrator for unreasonable delay under Clean Air Act § 304(a) over models for measuring ozone particles.
- Petition for rulemaking was granted to the extent it was addressed; one claim dismissed with prejudice; the other dismissed without prejudice.
- Plaintiff sought attorney fees under § 7604(d); EPA conceded some fee entitlement but disputed amount and methodology.
- Dispute centered on proper hourly rates (Kentucky vs. Washington, DC/Laffey framework) and which hours are compensable given intertwined claims.
- Court applied the Lodestar method, adopting Kentucky rates under the Davis County exception and reducing fee requests for fee-motion work.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prevailing party and fee eligibility | Sierra Club is at least partially prevailing and entitled to fees. | EPA acknowledges partial prevailment but disputes amount; seeks limits. | Sierra Club is a partially prevailing party; proceed to reasonableness of fees. |
| Appropriate hourly rates for Ukeiley's firm | Use Laffey/DC rates appropriate for DC litigation. | Use Kentucky rates under the Davis County exception since most work occurred there. | Kentucky rates adopted; American Canoe rates used for partners/associates/paralegals. |
| Compensable hours for intertwined claims | Hours for the entire matter should be compensable since claims were interrelated. | Limit hours by 50% due to one claim being unsuccessful. | No reduction; compensate 41.2 hours as a single, interrelated matter. |
| Fees for fees (Levine's work) and rate | Levine's fee-motion work is compensable; use appropriate rate and limited hours. | Reduce hours and limit rate adjustments; fees for fees should reflect partial success. | Levine’s services awarded at Laffey rate with reductions; total 16.05 hours at $435, totaling $6,981.75. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (lodestar and reasonableness in fee awards)
- Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air v. Delaware Valley, 478 U.S. 546 (U.S. 1986) (guidance on award of attorney’s fees and prevailing party considerations)
- Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club, 463 U.S. 680 (U.S. 1983) (requirement of some success on the merits for fee recovery)
- Davis Cnty. Solid Waste Mgmt. & Energy Recovery Special Serv. Dist. v. EPA, 169 F.3d 755 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (forum-rate exception for prevailing rates when most work is in a different market)
- Nat’l Ass’n of Concerned Veterans v. Sec’y of Def., 675 F.2d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (evidence of prevailing market rates in setting fees)
- American Canoe Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Louisa, 683 F. Supp. 2d 480 (E.D. Ky. 2010) (Kentucky environmental rates for fee awards)
- Donell v. United States, 682 F.2d 240 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (forum-rate considerations and locality of work)
- Am. Canoe Ass’n v. City of Louisa, 683 F. Supp. 2d 480 (E.D. Ky. 2010) (environmental practice rate and market considerations for Kentucky)
- Jeffboat, LLC v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 553 F.3d 487 (7th Cir. 2009) (geographic considerations in fee awards for specialized practice)
- Nat’l Ass’n of Concerned Veterans v. Sec’y of Def. (additional), 675 F.2d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (analysis of rates and evidence for prevailing market rate)
- Am. Lands Alliance v. Norton, 525 F. Supp. 2d 135 (D.D.C. 2007) (treatment of related claims and fee allocation)