EAJA: Prevailing on Only 1 Out of 3 Claims can Still be Quite Rewarding

Interesting take from two attorneys:

Equal Access To Justice Act: Why Prevailing On Only 1 Out Of 3 Claims In Oregon Forestry Case Can Still Be Quite Rewarding

” In Cascadia Wildlands v. Bureau of Land Management…, after prevailing on only one of three claims, and after the district court imposed a variety of reductions, the court awarded plaintiffs approximately three-quarters of the attorneys’ fees requested and 100% of the costs.”



8 thoughts on “EAJA: Prevailing on Only 1 Out of 3 Claims can Still be Quite Rewarding”

  1. Congratulations to the Cascadia Wildlands for so successfully gaming the system. Even when they lose, they win and when we, the taxpayer, win, we still lose. I guess we must turn to our elected officials and the wisdom that comes with their high office. Maybe the only way for the taxpayer to quit losing is to just give up and be done with it by turning all federal forest land into wilderness.

    Of course, after that, state lands will be next (Elliott State Forest?). Next up will be the private forests.

    I once saw a program with Pres. G.W. Bush, a former CIA Director, and a former Soviet-era KGB director. The KGB fellow said his agents were using the US’s environmental movement to further their cause. Something to think about as we increasingly lose our rights to the management and use of federal, state, and private lands

    [Isn’t there a story about how most of the German populace did not speak up when the Nazis targeted some group or other (gays, insane, Gypsies, etc.) because they were not affected? This continued on to the next targeted group until, eventually, there were no groups left to speak up, only those in lock-step with the Nazis.]

  2. I love it when internet trolls compare their most despised stereotype-du-jour (environmentalists/liberals/gays/blacks/conservatives/Libertarians/Republicans/Democrats/Catholics/Protestants) to Hitler/Stalin (extra scorn points for both). Says more about the accuser’s intellectual acuity than the accused.

    • Hmmm. I have no particular problem with any of those “stereotype-du-jour” groups listed. They (and I include environmental groups) have a legitimate role in American society. But I do have a problem when any group (large or small, mainstream or otherwise) is capable of running roughshod over the whole. My point is that the Nazis and the Lenninists were once small groups of no consequence. However, they were allowed to gain power to the point that they not only ran roughshod over the whole of their respective societies, they gained total control.

      I think it easy to draw some parallels with some groups within American society who have gained very great power over our federal forests. Like those societies mentioned above, we’ve allowed this to happen and I find it reprehensible that the taxpayer pays the costs of a lawsuit’s looser!

      If a plaintiff (including any of those “stereotype-du-jour” groups) has a sufficiently good case that they can prevail in court, then it is entirely reasonable that the defendant pay their costs. But, for the plaintiff to lose their case and the defendant has to pay the costs, well …. It seems to me what works for one should work for another; i.e., if the plaintiff’s case against the federal government looses, the plaintiff should repay the government (i.e., the taxpayer) for their losses.

  3. In an unrelated but perhaps analogous incident, convicted felon John Doe was acquitted of a breaking and entering charge (the door was open) as well as of the charge of indecent exposure (nobody saw him drop his pants). However, he was still convicted of theft for taking a television set and a large amount of jewelry from the home he entered. Mr. Doe complained, “Geez, despite prevailing on two of the three charges, I still have to go to jail. Even when I win, I still lose. This is patently unfair.”

  4. That’s why environmental groups sue the BLM and FS. Who can prove anything for sure about tree voles?
    If they had studied the tree voles more would they have supported the project? What did they really object too? The harvesting of trees?
    I think we have discussed this time after time. But here is just one example of how these environmental nonprofit corporations make public forest management almost impossible.
    (They are also somewhat responsible for the creation of the single species Douglas fir plantation on our private forest lands here is Western Oregon by the limiting of harvest on our public lands to small diameter thinning that are typically only Douglas fir. If that is the only resource available, then that is the only resource you will have a market for.)

  5. I guess some folks don’t think NEPA applies to their cause as much as it does to their foes causes. FS doesn’t loose as often as it used to because it develops better plans but it still goes down on plans that reveal inconsistencies between the purpose and the need. Talking Limbaugh and Nazis is irrelevant to what went wrong during planning.

  6. I wonder how many times enviro groups have spent weeks/months/years developing a lawsuit only to have the agency pull the project after a complaint has been filed. Groups don’t get paid on those types of NEPA/NFMA cases.

  7. Plaintiffs objected to the use of the survey and manage Pechman exemption. The case was an attempt to redefine Pechman. Redefining how that exemption was used in thinning projects was the brass ring – it would have further limited timber harvest under the NWFP. Fortunately, Plaintiffs lost that argument.


Leave a Comment