Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Clean Water Act

Court Awards Attorney's Fees for Successful Defense
of CWA and RCRA Claims

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Coon v. Willet Dairy, Ltd. Partnership, Nos. 5:02-CV-1195 FJS/GJD, 5:04-CV-917-FJS/GJD, 2009 WL 890580 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2009), the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York held that a defendant was entitled to attorney's fees for its successful defense of several of the plaintiffs' environmental claims, because the plaintiffs' pursuit of the claims was largely "unreasonable and groundless."

Background

The plaintiffs asserted causes of action for violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA), and New York Environmental Conservation Law (ECL). Id. at *1. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on those claims, and the appellate court affirmed the ruling. Id. The defendants then moved for attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) and 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d). Id.

Analysis and Holdings

Under the CWA, a prevailing defendant may recover fees only if the court finds that the litigation was "frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or that the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so." Id. The plaintiffs' RHA and ECL claims had been dismissed on the basis that there was no private right of action, and the court reasoned that "these are the type of frivolous claims which could lead to an award of attorney's fees." Id. at *2. The court further found that the plaintiffs' continued pursuit of their RCRA claim "was largely unreasonable and groundless." Id. The court also found that at some point in the litigation, the plaintiffs' counsel should have realized that their claims were "frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless," and held that the defendant was entitled to attorney's fees from that point forward. Id.

The court then determined the "reasonable hourly rate that a paying client would be willing to pay" by considering the following relevant factors:

(1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) the level of skill required to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the attorney's customary hourly rate; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) the time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved in the case and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the 'undesirability' of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases.
Id.

The court declined to award expert and consultant fees to the defendant, explaining that the defendant failed to provide records or invoices to support that request. Id. at *3.

The case was decided on March 31, 2009.