Wild Fish Conservancy v. Thom, 2:20-cv-00417

Wild Fish Conservancy (WFC) sued federal agencies for alleged violations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in connection with the 2019 Southeast Alaska Biological Opinion (BiOp) and its Incidental Take Statement (ITS).
The court found that the defendants violated ESA and NEPA and remanded the 2019 BiOp to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for correction, vacating portions authorizing the “take” of certain species, but denied some requested relief.
Both sides appealed remedy issues; the Ninth Circuit ultimately reversed vacatur of the ITS but affirmed the decision not to vacate the prey increase program.
WFC moved for over $2.3 million in attorney's fees and costs under the ESA and the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA); defendants conceded partial entitlement but disputed the amounts and rates.
The court addressed the reasonableness of rates, hours worked, and the appropriate level of fees and costs, applying reductions for overstaffing, failure to delegate, redundant billing, and limited success.
Ultimately, the magistrate judge recommended granting the motion in part, awarding $1,596,914.98 in fees and $42,410.08 in costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to Fees (ESA/EAJA)	Entitled due to partial litigation success and meeting statutory criteria	Limited success means any award should be reduced; positions were substantially justified	Entitled under both statutes, but reduction appropriate
Reasonableness of Hourly Rates	Specialized environmental counsel justified enhanced rates	Rates exceed market for similar work and should be reduced	Enhanced rates justified due to specialized expertise
Reasonableness of Hours Worked	Hours reasonable given case complexity, sole firm with needed expertise	Overstaffed, inflated hours, redundant and clerical work not compensable	Further reductions warranted (failure to delegate, redundancy)
Recovery of Costs	All costs reasonably incurred and documented	Some costs are non-recoverable	All requested costs awarded

Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club, 463 U.S. 680 (discussing the requisite level of success needed for fee awards under fee-shifting statutes)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (standard for reasonable attorneys’ fees and adjusting for partial success)
City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (establishing presumption that the lodestar is a reasonable fee)
Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106 (deference to a prevailing lawyer’s judgment but requiring reasonable reductions for overstaffing and redundancy)
Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392 (approving percentage reductions to trim excessive fee applications)