Morris-Smith

Morris-Smith v. Moulton Niguel Water District

Good Law
44 F. Supp. 2d 1084·99 Daily Journal DAR 8971·1999 WL 231507·1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5699
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaApril 15, 1999SA CV 98-35-GLT [CI]California899 words

Opinion

Opinion

Taylor, J.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES

The Court holds a prevailing defendant can recover attorney fees under the federal “Clean Water Act,” 33 U.S.C. § 1365 (d), if the Court finds the plaintiffs claims were frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. ’

This case was brought under the “citizen suit” provisions of the “Clean Water Act,” 33 U.S.C. § 1365 , against Defendant water districts. The Court entered summary judgment in Defendant districts’ favor, dismissing Plaintiffs claim.

Defendants now seek award of $208,472 in attorney fees and related costs as prevailing parties under 33 U.S.C. § 1365 (d), which provides:

Congress has not limited this section to recovery for prevailing plaintiffs. A prevailing defendant may also be awarded fees if the Court decides such an award is appropriate.

Neither the United States Supreme Court nor the Ninth Circuit has yet decided the standard for awarding costs, including attorney fees, under 33 U.S.C. § 1365’s “Clean Water Act.” However, the Court finds compelling the Supreme Court’s analysis on awarding attorney fees in Title VII actions. Title VII, in language similar to the “Clean Water Act,” provides a District Court…

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.