League for Coastal Protection v. Norton

Full title: LEAGUE FOR COASTAL PROTECTION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GALE NORTON…

Court: United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division

Date published: Sep 22, 2005

No. C-05-00991-CW (N.D. Cal. Sep. 22, 2005)

Opinion

No. C-05-00991-CW.

September 22, 2005

Andrew P. Caputo, SBN 203655, David E. Newman, SBN 233263, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiffs League for Coastal Protection, Natural Resources Defense Council.

Linda Krop, SBN 118773, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER, Santa Barbara, CA, Attorney for Plaintiffs The Otter Project, Sierra Club, Citizens Planning Association of Santa Barbara County, Defenders of Wildlife, Environment California, Get Oil Out!, Santa Barbara Channelkeeper, Surfrider Foundation.

David B. Glazer, Natural Resources Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, San Francisco, California, for the Defendants.

STIPULATION AND ORDER STAYING CONSIDERATION OF PLAINTIFFS' BILL OF COSTS

CLAUDIA WILKEN, District JudgePage 2

The parties submit this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Staying Consideration of the Plaintiffs' Bill of Costs until the time that the Court takes up plaintiffs' petition for attorneys fees, should plaintiffs file one.

In support of this Stipulation, the parties recite that:

1. Judgment in plaintiffs' favor was entered in this case on August 31, 2005, following the Court's ruling on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.

2. Defendants have until October 31, 2005, to file a notice of appeal.

3. On September 13, 2005, the Court granted the parties' stipulation extending the time for plaintiffs to file an attorneys' fees petition until November 30, 2005, should defendants not appeal, or within 30 days of final judgment following exhaustion of further opportunity to appeal, should an appeal be taken.

4. On September 8, 2005, plaintiff filed their bill of costs.

5. The defendants agree that the costs enumerated in plaintiffs' bill of costs are properly taxable costs; however, defendants believe that it would be appropriate to defer consideration of those costs until the Court takes up the larger question of plaintiffs' entitlement to attorneys fees and other expenses, should plaintiffs file a petition for fees and expenses. Accordingly, the parties stipulate to the [proposed] order, set out below, providing that the Court will defer consideration of plaintiffs' bill of costs until the time that plaintiffs file a petition for attorneys' fees and expenses.

SO STIPULATED:

ORDER

In consideration of foregoing Stipulation, good cause having been shown, it is hereby ORDERED that the Court will consider plaintiffs' bill of costs at the time that plaintiffs' petition for attorneys' fees and expenses comes at issue, should plaintiffs file such a petition.