- 33 -
U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska challenging the
Federal Government’s implementation of the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), 16 U.S.C. secs. 3101-
3233 (2000). As the Court of Appeals explained, the District
Court had consolidated two such cases, known as Katie John and
Babbitt, to serve as the lead cases:
Although several other cases were filed that turned on
the resolution of the * * * issues in Katie
John/Babbitt, the district court declined to
consolidate these additional dependent cases and chose,
instead, to manage them together and stayed proceedings
pending resolution of the core Katie John/Babbitt
issues.
* * * * * * *
The district court added the instant case to the
list of cases to be managed jointly in connection with
Katie John/Babbitt and, as part of an order explaining
how the joint management would proceed, the district
court invited the plaintiffs in the jointly managed
cases, including the case at hand, to submit amicus
briefing on the * * * issues in the consolidated cases.
Native Vill. of Quinhagak v. United States, supra at 1077-1078.
The various plaintiffs ultimately prevailed, and the Quinhagak
plaintiffs moved for attorney’s fees under ANILCA’s fee-shifting
provision. See 16 U.S.C. sec. 3117(a) (2000).
The District Court granted the Quinhagak plaintiffs’ fee
request in large part, rejecting the argument that they were not
entitled to fees for work relating to the Katie John/Babbitt
cases. In holding that the District Court did not abuse its
discretion in that regard, the Court of Appeals quoted at length
from the District Court’s order:
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011