RECENT FEDERAL DECISIONS

October 2009

To read this entire item of approximately 2000 words online now in PDF format: Click here to read this item if you are an existing subscriber to this publication. Click here to purchase the full text of this item to read now (price: $25). To subscribe to this publication and immediately access all its archives including this item, select the relevant publication under 'Catalogue' in the left-hand column PLEASE NOTE: to read PDFs on www.argento.com you must be using Version 5 of Acrobat Reader or Adobe Reader. If you have an earlier version you can download the latest free of charge by clicking here

Ninth Circuit Finds Judicially Enforceable Settlement Agreement Entitled Party to Attorney’s Fees as the ‘Prevailing Party’ under Clean Water Act Section 1365(d)
Saint John’s Organic Farm v. Gem County Mosquito Abatement District, ___F.3d__

Plaintiffs Saint John’s Organic Farm and Peter Dill (plaintiffs) filed suit under the Clean Water Act’s citizen-suit provisions against the Gem County Mosquito Abatement District and Gem County (defendants), alleging that defendants’ discharges of pesticides directly into “waters of the United States” without a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) violated the Clean Water Act. Following defendants’ lawsuit against plaintiffs and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requesting declaratory relief on the issue of whether an NPDES permit was required, plaintiffs and defendants settled their lawsuit (the settlement agreement). The settlement agreement filed with the U.S. District Court of Idaho required action from both plaintiffs and defendants. The settlement agreement stipulated that the District Court would retain jurisdiction over any application for attorney fees and costs pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d). Plaintiffs subsequently applied to the District Court for attorney’s fees, which was denied. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that plaintiffs were entitled to fees, in an amount to be determined on remand, as the terms of the settlement agreement were judicially enforceable, and that the settlement agreement materially altered the legal relationship between the parties, in that defendants’ compliance with the settlement agreement became legally required.