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)
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: daniel@lawyersforcleanwater.com
Christopher Sproul (Bar No. 126398)
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES
5135 Anza Street
San Francisco, California 94121
Telephone: (415) 533-3376
Facsimile: (415) 358-5695
Email: csproul@enviroadvocates.com
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: jason@baykeeper.org
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?