ELR Citation: ELR 20285
No(s). 08-35463 (9th Cir. Dec 15, 2009)

The Ninth Circuit held that environmental groups were not prevailing parties in their action against BLM in which they sought a preliminary injunction against a timber sale and, thus, are not entitled to attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. BLM withdrew its challenged decision to conduct a timber sale before a judgment was made. Under the Act, prevailing party status must always rest on a judicial sanction—typically an order of some kind—that materially alters the parties’ legal relationship. Here, BLM withdrew its challenged decision to conduct a timber sale before a judgment was made. Although a stipulation order barred the BLM from exercising its discretion to waive a seasonal restriction on timber sales, it was not material in the context of the relief the groups sought in this lawsuit—an injunction. In addition, a magistrate judge's recommendations on motions for summary judgment had no binding legal effect on the parties since the district court never adopted them. And the court's dismissal of the case on grounds of mootness did not confer prevailing party status on the groups. A lower court's grant of attorney fees in favor of the groups was therefore reversed and vacated.