Narrative Opinion Summary
The motion for attorneys’ fees has been denied. The court determined that a remand due to an agency's failure to respond to comments constitutes a procedural victory for the petitioner and does not qualify for an award of attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 7607(f). This conclusion is supported by the precedent set in Sierra Club v. EPA, where similar circumstances were evaluated. In contrast, in Michigan v. EPA, attorneys' fees were awarded because the agency was required to reopen the record and accept new comments, increasing the likelihood of a rule change.
Legal Issues Addressed
Attorneys' Fees under 42 U.S.C. § 7607(f)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court decided that a procedural victory, such as a remand due to an agency's failure to respond to comments, does not qualify for an award of attorneys' fees.
Reasoning: The court determined that a remand due to an agency's failure to respond to comments constitutes a procedural victory for the petitioner and does not qualify for an award of attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 7607(f).
Precedent in Determining Attorneys' Fees Eligibilitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court referenced Sierra Club v. EPA to support its decision, contrasting it with Michigan v. EPA, where different circumstances led to a different outcome regarding attorneys' fees.
Reasoning: This conclusion is supported by the precedent set in Sierra Club v. EPA, where similar circumstances were evaluated. In contrast, in Michigan v. EPA, attorneys' fees were awarded because the agency was required to reopen the record and accept new comments, increasing the likelihood of a rule change.