Temporary Stay, Magistrate Tentative Summary Judgment Ruling, and Dismissal Based on Ripeness/Mootness Did Not Justify Fee Award.
The prevailing party in a dispute governed by the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. sec. 2412, is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees if the party achieved “a material alteration in the legal relationship of the parties that is judicially sanctioned.” This provision was front and center in a recent Ninth Circuit case, reversing an award of EAJA fees to environmental organizations, in Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. Bureau of Land Mgt., Case No. 98-35463 (9th Cir. Dec. 15, 2009) (for publication).
The real issue in this case was whether environmental organizations were EAJA prevailing parties when, before judgment, BLM withdrew its challenge to a timber sale. The district court awarded plaintiffs fees, but the Ninth Circuit reversed—so that the answer to the question was “no” under the particular circumstances at issue.
“All together, [the] case law establishes that the sine qua non of prevailing party status is an enforceable, judicially sanctioned award of much of the relief the plaintiff sought.” (Slip Opn., p. 16553.) Based on this precept, the Ninth Circuit found that none of the following developments in the litigation qualified as judicially sanctioned relief:
- A stipulated order temporarily staying a timber sale (this was not equivalent to a preliminary injunction under the specific facts);
- A magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in favor of plaintiffs on summary judgment motions, which were never adopted by the district court with any finality;
- A district judge’s dismissal based only on ripeness/mootness grounds (which demonstrated no judicial relief should be granted); and
- The ruling of the Ninth Circuit in the separate case of Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. Boody, 468 F.3d 549 (9th Cir. 2006), because it did not constitute direct judicially sanctioned relief in the pertinent, pending action—even if the earlier actions caused a capitulation in favor of plaintiffs.
BLOG UNDERVIEW—This case has an interesting discussion of how to treat badly splintered decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court from a precedential standpoint.