Unpublished Disposition, 940 F.2d 669 (9th Cir. 1991)

 Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 940 F.2d 669 (9th Cir. 1991)

PORTLAND AUDUBON SOCIETY, Lane County Audubon Society,Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.Manuel LUJAN, Jr., in his official capacity as Secretary,United States Department of the Interior, Defendant-Appellee,U.S. Forest Service, Northwest Forest Resource Council,Association of O & C Counties,Defendant-Intervenors-Appellees.PORTLAND AUDUBON SOCIETY, et al., Headwaters, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.Manuel LUJAN, Jr., in his official capacity as Secretary,United States Department of the Interior, Defendant-Appellee,Northwest Forest Resource Council, Association of O & CCounties, et al., Defendant-Intervenors-Appellees.

Nos. 90-35413, 90-35587.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Feb. 11, 1991.Decided July 18, 1991.

Before GOODWIN, SCHROEDER and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER* 

Plaintiffs appeal the district court's order requiring them to pay the costs of defendant-intervenor Association of O and A Counties and the federal defendant, the Bureau of Land Management. They also appeal the district court's order denying their request for fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

An order taxing costs is valid only after a final judgment. This case has been reinstated in the district court. Further, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in our decision in 914 F.2d 1311 (9th Cir. 1990). We therefore vacate the order taxing the plaintiffs to pay the costs of the defendant-intervenor Association of O & C Counties and the federal defendant.

An appellate court will not ordinarily review interim denials of fees. The appeal of the order denying fees is therefore dismissed without prejudice to the plaintiffs renewing their petition for fees when this litigation becomes final.

 *

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.