Norton

Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation v. Norton

Good Law
259 F. Supp. 2d 1081·2003 WL 2012413·56 ERC (BNA) 1782·2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7788
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaFebruary 28, 20033:01-cv-02101California4,079 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gonzalez, J.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Presently before the Court is plaintiff Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation’s (“BILD”) motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. BILD’s costs have already been taxed against defendants by order of the Clerk of the Court on February 12, 2003. This Order will accordingly only address the portion of BILD’s motion seeking attorneys’ fees. For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies BILD’s motion.

BACKGROUND

On November 15, 2001, the Center for Biological Diversity and California Native Plant Society (collectively, “CBD”) filed suit against Gale Norton, Secretary of the Interior, and the United Stated Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) in this Court alleging that the defendants violated the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) by determining that designating critical habitat for eight plant species listed as endangered or threatened is not prudent. Shortly thereafter, on November 21, 2001, plaintiff BILD filed suit against the Secretary and FWS alleging the same substantive claims. Both complaints sought a declaratory judgment that the Secretary failed to perform a mandatory duty…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.