- 34 -
the Katie John case was the vehicle which the court
chose to resolve the * * * issues for all of the
jointly managed cases. * * *
“For defendants to suggest, as they do, that
plaintiffs’ work was for different parties in a
different case misconstrues and misrepresents the
reality of what was going on in these jointly managed
cases. For all practical purposes, there was but one
case in which the * * * issues were going to be
decided, and that decision was going to be binding in
all of the cases. The actual briefs may have been
filed (were filed) in the Katie John case, but they
bore directly upon issues raised by the plaintiffs in
this case. * * * ”
Native Vill. of Quinhagak v. United States, supra at 1079. Thus,
even though their brief in the Katie John/Babbitt cases had been
“‘proffered by a technical non-party’”, id. (again quoting the
District Court), the Quinhagak plaintiffs were entitled to
recover the corresponding attorney’s fees. Inasmuch as the test
case appeal and the Adair appeal share the same real parties in
interest and substantive issues, we similarly conclude that
Izen’s timely motion under Ninth Circuit rule 39-1.8, although
technically filed in the Adair appeal, effectively transferred
the issue of Izen’s fees in the test case appeal as well.
b. Discrepancies Between Fee Request and Alleged
Invoice
On April 13, 2006, respondent submitted to the Court certain
documents he had recently received from Geoffrey Sjostrom, the
business manager of the Defense Fund. See supra note 7 and
accompanying text. The documents include several pages of a
facsimile transmission that, based on the identifying information
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011