February 8, 2013
In a curious twist in the long-running
fight between anti-golf activists and San Francisco over the fate of the city’s
historic public Sharp Park Golf Course, the Tucson-based Center for Biological
Diversity, Wild Equity Institute, and a handful of other groups filed a motion here
today in Federal Court, asking the same Federal Judge who dismissed their
lawsuit in December, 2012 to order the City of San Francisco to pay their legal
bill of more than $1.3 Million.
“It’s a head-scratcher,” mused San Francisco
The fee motion was filed in Wild Equity Institute, Center for Biological
Diversity, et al. vs. City and County
of San Francisco , U.S.District Court California
red-legged frogs and San Francisco San Francisco but located in the southern beachside suburb
of Pacifica , CA
Federal
Judge Susan Illston on December 6, 2012 dismissed the Lawsuit, and the
Plaintiffs have since filed an appeal.
Judge Illston had previously in November, 2011 denied the Plaintiffs’
motion for a Preliminary Injunction to halt golf operations, and in April, 2012
denied the Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion.
The Plaintiffs’ fee motion was filed
under a provision of the Endangered Species Act that authorizes the Courts to
award legal fees “whenever the Court determines such award is appropriate”. Plaintiffs seek payment for more than 2,000
hours of attorneys time, most of which are billed at hourly rates between $550
and $750.
“This is environmental litigation in
Wonderland,” said Links of the Public Golf Alliance. “Plaintiffs bring suit to close the golf
course that created the freshwater conditions that enabled the frog and snake
to come in the first place. Then they
lose every motion they file, and their case is thrown out. And now they want the Court to order the City
to pay their attorney’s fees? How can
this possibly be an “appropriate” case for a fee award? It’s a request that boggles the mind,
especially given the City’s efforts, which began long before this lawsuit was
filed, to do the right thing by the species and golfers who together inhabit
this wonderful place.”
A hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion is
currently scheduled for May 10, 2013.
# # # # #
For more
information, contact:
Richard Harris
415-290-5718
Submitted by Richard Harris
31 comments:
"Plaintiffs seek payment for more than 2,000 hours of attorneys time, most of which are billed at hourly rates between $550 and $750." from the Article.
Wow. Is the City of San Francisco and the SF Public Golf Alliance able to counter sue for this frivolous law suit, excessive fee billing, and recovery of their own costs? If so, why not, they should.
This is so sickening. They bring a ridiculously frivolous lawsuit, are justly defeated, and then want $1.3M of taxpayer money as compensation for wasting everyone's time. I can't believe Ian and Maybury supported these con artists.
"Ian and Maybury supported these con artists." Anonymous 10:40 AM
Seriously, that's a stretch. I doubt that either Ian or John would support what they believe to be "con artists".
And why single out two individuals only? Why not point to the con-attorneys, those more directly involved in the effort, or just name them all Anonymous (like you).
I don't care what they believe. I believe Plater is a con artist who wasted tons of time and money through his frivolous lawsuits, and I also believe that this current greedy lawsuit was his only true goal in the entire mess. I singled Ian and Maybury out because they were the only Pacificans (at least that I know) who publicly supported him.
I remember Ron Maykal also was a big Plater supporter. And of course Kathy Jana Bird.
I get the sense that even former supporters are embarrassed by Plater.
"I get the sense that even former supporters are embarrassed by Plater."
Most local environmentalists have had to turn away from his combative extremism, which in the end probably does more harm than good.
It doesn't probably do more harm, Ian, it has done more harm. And now that the WE, CBD punchline is being played out for fees it really is the destroying blow.
Years ago in a LTE I made a light hearted joke about the CBD being a non native invasive species, and in the end unfortunately that rib tickler is being borne out.
A lot of time and effort was wasted by this mess by well meaning people we all know who were for whatever reason led fair afield. It would be equally a shame if WE and CBD were granted their fees. If nothing else this whole business has provided a cautionary tale for folks who in the future are looking to make a difference.
maybe I am slow. what is the difference between what CBD tried to do with the golf course, and what the nobies just did with the beach? besides the Pacifica nobies being successful.
Stranger things have happened. Keep that check book handy, San Francisco.
I understand legal fees being paid when you win the argument but paying the loser makes no sense to me.
David vs. Goliath and the nobility and public interest of the cause but let's hope not
@ANON407 . . . no difference. no matter how hard they pretend. The locals are just "Plater-lite"
How long before Plater and his legal posse descend on Pacifica State Beach and demand the whole thing. Since Pacifica is in charge, and broke, what a perfect target to sue and get to roll over. Hey, Surfers, find a new beach. How do you like them apples!
"Most local environmentalists have had to turn away from his combative extremism, which in the end probably does more harm than good." - Ian Butler
Ian brings up a good point. Despite how the mainstream media has covered The Golf War at Sharp Park, it was never about environmentalists vs. golfers. This is San Francisco. If it was really about Environmentalists vs. Golfers - game over. The enviros win. This has always been enviros vs. enviros. The extreme "deep ecology" "end justifies the means" environmental litigation and intimidation favored by CBD/WEI vs. common sense environmentalists like scientist Karen Swaim, and the staff of SF Rec & Park who truly put the welfare of the frog and snake first - above ideology.
In case anyone is interested - here are some relevant excerpts from the Sharp Park motion filed in District Court Friday and the legal fees being requested for reimbursement:
Case No.: 3:11-CV-00958 SI
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
According to Plaintiffs’ counsels’ contemporaneously maintained billing records, counsel have thus far spent the following number of hours on this case through January 31, 2013:
Brent Plater: 857.7 hours
Howard Crystal: 844 hours
Eric Glitzenstein: 282.75 hours
Shawna Casabier: 47.15 hours
Kelli Shields: 217 hours
In addition, paralegals spent 691 hours working on the case...
In light of that experience and background, Plaintiffs request the following rates for counsel: $750/hour for Mr. Glitzenstein; $700/hour for Mr. Crystal; $550/hour for Mr. Plater; $295/hour for Ms. Casebier; and $250/hour for Ms. Shields...
Applying the requested hourly rates to the number of hours for which recovery is sought, Plaintiffs are entitled to a fee award of $ 1,451,556. However, to account for any billing discrepancies, Plaintiffs are affirmatively reducing that request by 10%, to $1,306,400. Id.; see also South Yuba, 2012 WL at 2 (“A district court may impose a small reduction, no greater than 10 percent a ‘haircut’ – based on its exercise of discretion and without a more specific explanation”) (citing Moreno, 534 F.3d at 1112)...
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant their fee Petition and award fees in the amount of $1,306,400 and $59,409 in costs.
All of the listed attorneys are specified in the motion as "Attorneys for Plaintiffs". I have no idea how that breaks down between all the plaintiffs (CBD,WEI, etc.) , so let's just focus on the lead attorney - Brent Plater - President of Wild Equity Institute.
Mr. Plater is asking to be reimbursed for 857.7 hours at a rate of $550.00 / hour for a total fee of $471,735.00 for his billable hours on a case that was initially filed in March 2011 up through January 2013. That is four times the total revenue that came into the WEI for the first three years (2009-2011)of its existence according to the IRS Form 990 they are required to file. Not bad pay for 20 months work. And that is only one lawsuit. There are more.
I have no visibility into what Mr. Plater would do with the funds should the court decide to reimburse him for his time as he has requested. My assumption is that as a committed environmentalist leading a struggling new environmental advocacy organization staffed by unpaid volunteers, he would naturally funnel the funds secured as a consequence of his leadership role in WEI back into WEI in order to continue its work. He would, of course, continue to draw a salary commensurate with the success and non-profit nature of the organization. This seems sensible, if for no other reason, to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest with the organization he runs. In any case, it would be a good question for an investigative reporter to ask directly of Mr. Plater. Exactly where would the money go if the court chooses to grant his motion?
Plater has said along throughout this process that closing Sharp Park would save SF money for other rec programs etc. No he wants SF to pay his legal fees. Where is this money going to come from and who, if he is successful will be affected via a lack of funds? Once again he a proves he is only out for the
$$$$$ !!!!
Butch, Time to go "raider fan" on Plater and his bunch of hippies!
Spot on Butch. The level of hypocrisy on the part of the plaintiffs here is breathtaking. Remember the SF Supe Budget Meeting we documented a few years ago? [LINK HERE].
Brent Plater and a parade of Sharp Park haters were crying crocodile tears for the city community services they claimed were be being because the City was subsidizing Sharp. It was truly despicable, because they were misrepresenting the facts to these organizations suffering the budget cuts. Sharp Park Golfers actually subsidize City services through transfer overhead payments to the City. If Sharp was closed, the City would have to make deeper cuts.
As bad as that was, this is even worse. For a losing case, they still want to suck $1.3 million out of the City treasury right into their own pockets. Money that would come right out of the budgets for all the City services they pretended to be concerned about then. It's really reprehensible. I don't understand why anyone would contribute to this organization.
Also, remember how PlaHater and his peeps wanted to spread propaganda stating golf is a "rich white man's game"? This guy and his followers are real haters and dividers. When will someone elected yellow belly official stand up to these people and say "ENOUGH"
Shaking down taxpayers for frivilous lawsuit expenses is the ultimate "rich white man's game".
Out these S.O.B. enviro terrorists.
It's only a matter of time before they start ginning up our little Plover the Hill gang and seize our beaches and the few pennies left in our treasury.
The commentator who said the issue was enviro's against enviro's s 100% correct. WE and CBD has caused real hurt to our community. Don't forget the enormous amount of staff time diverted to this issue that we have all paid for.
Who's up for filing a suit against WE and CBD to recoup damages?
Who's up for filing a suit against WE and CBD to recoup damages?
How about a lawsuit against the nobees to recover all the damage and lost revenue to the city?
"When will someone elected yellow belly official stand up to these people and say "ENOUGH."
When she was Mayor, Julie Lancelle stood up to them and to Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi when he was leading the charge against the golf course for SF. Did she get any support from people on this blog? No.
Lancelle did that? Well, like my old granny used to say, even a blind hog can find an acorn now and then.
Without Julie's help while she was Mayor Sharp Park may now the Frog Park that Plater wanted.
Yeah, well, with Julie's help the enviros took the beach for the not-even-endangered plovers. Ten years max, with nothing but bs along the way, and that beach will be closed for breeding season March-September. Kumbaya, baby. Got anything of value left?
So put a dress on that statue of Portola and call it Julie. Duly honored.
"WE and CBD has caused real hurt to our community." Todd Bray, 9:00 AM.
I personally respect your courage in standing-up against WE and CBD, Todd. Hear, hear!
Aww, Todd says the enviro community has been hurt by WE and CBD. Awww. Feel for ya, buddy.
Many of the people who are repeatedly attacked on this blog as hippies and nobees are in favor of keeping the Sharp Park Golf Course.
even a blind hog, etc.
@235 no doubt those nobees and hippies supporting the golf course are swayed by the resemblance of a golf course to open space, holy holy, open space
Post a Comment