ELR Citation: ELR 20837
No(s). s. 93-5771, 94-5059 (3d Cir. Apr 10, 1995)

The court vacates and remands a district court's award of attorney fees to a citizens group that obtained injunctive, but not monetary, relief against the U.S. Air Force for violating its national pollutant discharge elimination system permit at McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey. The court first affirms the district court's adoption of the entire District of New Jersey as the relevant market for legal rates. The court rejects the Air Force's argument that the court should use the community in which the district court is located. The record shows that few southern New Jersey law firms were available that were willing to represent the group, and the record lacks any evidence from which the geographic boundaries of a southern New Jersey market for legal services could be inferred. The court next holds that the district court failed to make required findings regarding the hours that should be included in calculating the lodestar amount. On remand, the district court should consider the Air Force's objections to particular time charges in determining the hours the group can reasonably claim. The court holds, however, that time spent preparing a required intent-to-sue letter is compensable. The court overrules Student Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey v. Monsanto Co., 20 ELR 20756 (D.N.J. 1989), to the extent that it holds otherwise. Thus, on remand, the district court may consider the group's claims for time spent in preparing the letter, but should disallow all time and rates claimed that are excessive and unreasonable.

The court holds that the district court erred in applying a 50 percent negative multiplier to the lodestar based on the group's failure to obtain monetary relief. Although adjustments to the lodestar are within the district court's discretion, that discretion is limited, and the U.S. Supreme Court has specifically rejected a rough mathematical approach like the one the district court used. On remand, the district court should consider the relationship between the extent of success and the amount of the fee award. The court holds that the distict court must calculate the lodestar before considering adjustments based on the results obtained. The court vacates the district court's order denying the group fees for legal services rendered in connection with the attorney fees dispute. Such fees are recoverable under a fee-shifting statute. On remand, the district court should also calculate a lodestar for these legal services.

Counsel for Appellee

Carolyn S. Pravlik, Bruce J. Terris
Terris, Pravlik & Wagner
1121 12th St. NW, Washington DC 20005
(202) 682-2100

Counsel for Appellant
Andrew C. Mergen
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 514-2000

Before Stapleton, Hutchinson, and Rosenn, JJ.: