• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
   L   A   W
 
   O   F   F   I   C   E   O   F   H   A   G   E   R   &   H   E   A   R   N   E
   9   1   0   P   A   R   R   B   L   V   D . ,   #   8   R   E   N   O ,   N   V   8   9   5   1   2   (   7   7   5   )   3   2   9  -   5   8   0   0  ;   F   A   X   (   7   7   5   )   3   2   9  -   5   8   1   9 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728- 1 -
 Winnemucca Indian Colony et al. v U.S. et al,2:06cv00497LDG-PAL, Motion for Fees
ROBERT R. HAGER, SBN 1482HAGER & HEARNE910 Parr Blvd., #8
 E-filed March 21, 2008
Reno, NV 89512Tel: 775.329.5800Fax: 775.329.5819email: parrlawoffices@sbcglobal.net Attorney for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF NEVADA 
 WINNEMUCCA INDIAN COLONY,)THOMAS WASSON, JUDY ROJO,)SHARON WASSON, ELVERINE)CASTRO, PETER LITSTER, )STEPHEN ERICKSON, VIRGINIA)SANCHEZ, JACK MALOTTE, KIM)TOWNSEND, ARVILLA)MASCARENAS, PATRICIA) AXELROD, and TIMBISHA)Case No: 2:06-cv-00497-LDG-PALSHOSHONE TRIBE,))Plaintiffs,)
) v.))
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )DONALD RUMSFELD, Secretary)of the United States Department )of Defense, LINTON BROOKS,)Director of the National Nuclear)Security Administration, JAMES)TEGNELIA, Director of the Defense)Threat Reduction Agency,
))
Defendants.
) ____________________________)
MOTION TO DECLARE PLAINTIFFS THE PREVAILING PARTIES AND FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
Plaintiffs, by and through their lead counsel herein, Robert R. Hager,hereby move the Court under LR 54-16 for a declaration that they are theprevailing parties, and for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs as the prevailing
Case 2:06-cv-00497-LDG-PAL Document 73 Filed 03/21/2008 Page 1 of 22
 
   L   A   W
 
   O   F   F   I   C   E   O   F   H   A   G   E   R   &   H   E   A   R   N   E
   9   1   0   P   A   R   R   B   L   V   D . ,   #   8   R   E   N   O ,   N   V   8   9   5   1   2   (   7   7   5   )   3   2   9  -   5   8   0   0  ;   F   A   X   (   7   7   5   )   3   2   9  -   5   8   1   9 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728- 2 -
 Winnemucca Indian Colony et al. v U.S. et al,2:06cv00497LDG-PAL, Motion for Fees
parties in this action. This Motion is made and based on all the pleadings andpapers on file herein, the matters set forth herein and attached hereto, and theevidence and argument heard in support of this Motion on June 27, 2007.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIESThe sequence of events in this case proves that it was this action andthe written opinions of 
 
Plaintiffs’ experts that forced the Defendantseach time to cancel the Divine Strake blast and withdraw theirinadequate environmental documentation.
Plaintiffs set forth the following chronology of relevant events in support of their request that the Court find that the Defendants’ decisions to detonate 700tons of explosives on the surface of the ground at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) wereunreasonable and without substantial justification as a matter of fact and law,and that the Defendants were thwarted in their intentions and efforts to detonatethat huge bomb solely as a direct result of this litigation.
Chronology 
1. November, 2005: DIVINE STRAKE Pre-Approval Draft EA 2.January 30, 2006: Defendants issue FONSI approving blast3.April 4, 2006: DTRA Press Release announcing 6/2/06 blast date4.April 20, 2006: Plaintiffs file Complaint and TRO Motion5.May 3, 2006: Defendants’ withdraw FONSI and cancel blast6.May 5, 2006: DIVINE STRAKE Revised EA 7.May 9, 2006: Defendants Revised FONSI approving 6/23/06 blast8.May 22, 2006: Plaintiffs file Second Amended Complaint and Motion9.May 26, 2006: Defendants withdraw Revised FONSI and cancel6/23/06 blast10.December 20, 2006: Defendants issue Draft DIVINE STRAKERevised EA, Site Characterization, and related supporting documents11.February 6, 2007: Plaintiffs file their written comments and experts’opinions with Defendants and challenge to Draft Revised EA 
Case 2:06-cv-00497-LDG-PAL Document 73 Filed 03/21/2008 Page 2 of 22
 
   L   A   W
 
   O   F   F   I   C   E   O   F   H   A   G   E   R   &   H   E   A   R   N   E
   9   1   0   P   A   R   R   B   L   V   D . ,   #   8   R   E   N   O ,   N   V   8   9   5   1   2   (   7   7   5   )   3   2   9  -   5   8   0   0  ;   F   A   X   (   7   7   5   )   3   2   9  -   5   8   1   9 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
1
 
U.S. v. Hallmark Construction Co.
, 200 F.3d 1076, 1080 (7
th
Cir. 2000)
- 3 -
 Winnemucca Indian Colony et al. v U.S. et al,2:06cv00497LDG-PAL, Motion for Fees
12.February 22, 2007: Defendants announce permanent cancellation of plans for Divine Strake 700 ton detonationThe above brief chronology shows the following time periods between thePlaintiffs’ written challenges to the Defendants’ scheme to detonate the DivineStrake bomb and the Defendants’ cancellation of their decisions:
Time between first Plaintiffs’ filing and cancellation
:
13 daysTime between second Plaintiffs’ filing and cancellation
:
4 daysTime between third Plaintiffs’ filing and cancellation
:
16 days
There are two reasons why the Defendants cancelled their plans to detonate the700 ton bomb very shortly after each written challenge by the Plaintiffs. First,this Court had made clear by its prompt scheduling of evidentiary hearings andcontinued monitoring of this case by regularly scheduled status conferences thatthe Plaintiffs would be provided an evidentiary hearing to challenge theDefendants’ stated opinions that the blast would not pose any health risk.Second, the Plaintiffs pleadings and written expert opinions made clear that thePlaintiffs were prepared to prove that the Defendants had each time falsely  vouched for the safety of the huge blast and maintained that the litigation was without merit when the government pressed forward with its decision makingprocess without any substantial justification.
1
 What is not reflected by the above chronology and the quick cancellations by Defendants of their blast plans is the extent of time and money that wasexpended by Plaintiffs’ counsel and their experts in successfully stopping theDefendants from carrying out their dangerous plan. That extensive work by Plaintiffs’ counsel and their experts is reflected by the attached Exhibits, and thefactual and legal reasons for why an award of fees and costs to Plaintiffs is properin this case are set forth below.
 
Case 2:06-cv-00497-LDG-PAL Document 73 Filed 03/21/2008 Page 3 of 22
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...