attorneys fees – Turtle Talk

In this case, the trial court ordered the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes to pay half of the cost of the child’s attorneys fees, sanctioned the Tribes for not turning over membership information in response to the adoptive couple’s motion to compel, barred the Tribes from presenting information on the child’s status as an Indian child, barred the Tribes from enrolling the child, and granted attorney’s fees request from the adoptive couple.

In 2015.

On August 12, 2015, the trial court granted the Does $863 in costs and $35,000 in attorney fees against the Tribes, and further granted Child’s counsel $6,056.25 in fees against the Tribes. The Tribes initially challenged the lower court’s discovery and sanction rulings, as well as its ultimate grant of petition for adoption and attorney fees. The Does cross-appealed, challenging the Tribes’ intervention in the matter. The Tribes have since dropped their challenge to the adoption and the Does correspondingly dropped their challenge to the Tribes’ intervention. What remains now is the Tribes’ assertion that the lower court’s discovery rulings, injunction, sanctions, grant of fees, and failure to find Child an Indian child were in error. The Does request attorney fees on appeal pursuant to Idaho Appellate Rule 11.2(a) and Idaho Code section 12–121.

All of these were ultimately overturned by the Idaho Supreme Court in the decision.

Ninth Circuit Rules (Preliminarily) in Favor of Black Mesa Water Coalition in Attorney Fees Dispute

January 26, 2015January 26, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Black Mesa Water Coalition v. Jewell. From the court’s summary:

The panel reversed in part, and vacated in part, the district court’s judgment in an action for costs and expenses brought by a plaintiff group of environmental and community organizations against the federal Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement after plaintiff participated in a successful challenge to OSM’s grant of a coal mining permit revision.

Plaintiff petitioned the agency under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act’s administrative fee-award provision to recover costs and expenses from OSM. The administrative law judge dismissed the fee petition based on the conclusion that plaintiff was not “eligible,” and was not “entitled” to costs and expenses, under 43 C.F.R. § 4.1294(b).

The panel held that its review of the agency’s “eligibility” determination was de novo, and its review of the “entitlement” determination was for substantial evidence. The panel concluded that plaintiff was “eligible” for fees because it showed some degree of success on the merits, and the agency’s contrary conclusion was error as a matter of law. The panel vacated the portion of the district court’s decision as related to the question of entitlement. The panel declined to reach the issue whether plaintiff was “entitled” to fees, and remanded for the agency to consider the issue. Finally, the panel rejected plaintiff’s argument that the Secretary of the Interior had waived a challenge to the reasonableness of any award amount that the agency might grant on remand for costs and expenses reasonably incurred for plaintiff’s participation in the proceedings at the agency level.

And the briefs:

Black Mesa Opening Brief

Interior Appellee Brief

Black Mesa Reply

Black Mesa Supplemental Brief

Interior Supplemental Brief

Black Mesa Supplemental Reply Brief

Oral argument audio here.