Environmental Protection Information Center v. Pacific Lumber Co.

Good Law
103 F. App'x 627
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 7, 2004No. 02-17140; D.C. No. CV-98-03129-MHPCalifornia1,049 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Defendant-Appellant Pacific Lumber Company (Pacific) appeals from the dis *629 trict court’s order awarding attorneys fees to Plaintiff-Appellee Environmental Protection Information Center, Inc. (Center). The district court had jurisdiction over Center’s motion for attorneys fees pursuant to 16 U.S.C. §§ 1540 (c) & (g) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 , and we have jurisdiction over Pacific’s timely filed appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorneys’ fees to Center.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) provides that a district court “may award costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney ... fees) to any party, whenever the court determines such award is appropriate.” 16 U.S.C. § 1540 (g)(4). Attorneys fees are “appropriate” when granted to a party who achieved “some degree of success on the merits,” Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club, 463 U.S. 680, 694 , 103 S.Ct. 3274 , 77 L.Ed.2d 938 (1983), meaning that the party “succeeded] on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit it sought in bringing suit,” LSO, Ltd. v. Stroh, 205 F.3d 1146, 1160 (9th Cir.2000) (internal citations,…

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.