San Francisco Baykeeper v. West Bay Sanitary District

Filing 177

ORDER REQUIRING PAYMENT OF PLAINTIFF'S INTERIM FEES AND COSTS AWARD re 176 Status Report filed by San Francisco Baykeeper. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 12/14/11. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Daniel Cooper (Bar No. 153576) Layne Friedrich (Bar No. 195431) Caroline Koch (Bar No. 266068) LAWYERS FOR CLEAN WATER, INC. 1004-A O’Reilly Avenue San Francisco, California 94129 Telephone: (415) 440-6520 Facsimile: (415) 440-4155 Email: Christopher Sproul (Bar No. 126398) ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES 5135 Anza Street San Francisco, California 94121 Telephone: (415) 533-3376 Facsimile: (415) 358-5695 Email: Jason Flanders (Bar No. 238007) SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER 785 Market Street, Suite 850 San Francisco, California 94103 Telephone: (415) 856-0444 Facsimile: (415) 856-0443 Email: Attorneys for Plaintiff SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 19 20 21 SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER, a California non-profit corporation, Plaintiff, 22 23 24 25 26 Civil Case No.: C-09-05676 EMC [PROPOSED] ORDER REQUIRING PAYMENT OF PLAINTIFF’S INTERIM FEES AND COSTS AWARD v. WEST BAY SANITARY DISTRICT, a California independent municipal corporation, Judge: Honorable Edward M. Chen Location: United States District Court 450 Golden Gate Ave Courtroom 5, 17th Floor Defendant. 27 28 [Proposed] Order Requiring Payment of Interim Fees and Costs Order Civil Case No.: C-09-05676 EMC 1 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER Plaintiff San Francisco Baykeeper’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for an interim award of attorneys’ fees 3 and costs came on for hearing before the Court on October 7, 2011. Docket No. 139. In its order on 4 Plaintiff’s motion, the Court found that Plaintiff was entitled to an award of $435,621.37 in fees and 5 costs as a prevailing party under the Clean Water Act. Docket No. 174. During the further status 6 conference for this matter on December 2, 2011, the Court deferred payment of Plaintiff’s interim fees 7 and costs as awarded until resolution of Defendant West Bay Sanitary District’s (“Defendant”) 8 application for leave to file a motion pursuant to Rule 12(h). See Docket No. 175. On December 12, 9 2011, in their updated joint status report, the parties informed the Court that Defendant no longer intends 10 to seek leave to file its proposed motion. Therefore further deferral is unwarranted. Moreover, 11 Defendant’s payment of interim fees and costs awarded by the Court is unrelated to Defendant’s 12 previously proposed motion. See Chesapeake Bay Found. v. Gwaltney, 484 U.S. 49, 67 n.6 (1987) (to 13 protect citizen-plaintiffs, the award of litigation costs under section 1365(d) extends to “plaintiffs in 14 actions which result in successful abatement but do not reach a verdict”). 15 After careful consideration of the relevant legal authority, all papers filed by Plaintiff and 16 Defendant related to Defendant’s payment of Plaintiff’s interim fees and costs, and good cause 17 appearing: 18 19 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant shall reimburse Plaintiff $435,621.37 in litigation costs, 60 including attorneys’ fees and other costs, awarded by the Court within 30 days of the date of this order. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the payment required by this Order shall be made in the form 21 of a check payable to “Lawyers for Clean Water Attorney Client Trust Account” addressed to: 1004-A 22 O’Reilly Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94129, sent overnight delivery. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. H E LI RT FO NO [Proposed] Order Requiring Payment of Interim Fees and Costs UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE n M. Che 1 Case No. C-09-05676 EMC Edward Judge A 27 R NIA DERED SO OR ED ____________________________________ IT IS DIFI HONORABLE EDWARD O AS M CHEN 26 28 UNIT ED 12/14 Dated: ______________, 2011 S DISTRICT TE C TA RT U O 25 S 24 C

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?