for a judgment on the merits, the City will have completed a renovation project that will eliminate the pollution discharge problems.” Id. The Sixth Circuit rejected this argument. It held that “even if the renovation project made it reasonably likely that the discharge violations would not recur, this hypothetical situation tells us nothing about the likelihood that the defendants’ violations of the monitoring of the reporting requirements of the discharge permit would recur.” Id. at 543-44 (emphasis in original). The Sixth Circuit’s focus on continued monitor ing and reporting violations also shows the reasonableness of American Canoe’s persistence in this case after 2004. Thus the ultimate question is whether American Canoe’s approach was reasonable. Thurman, 90 F.3d at 1169 (<HOLDING>). In light of the defense tactics that Louisa
holding that the legislative history of the idea indicates that this attorneys fees provision should be interpreted in accordance with hensley v eckerhart recognizing that an appeal filed within 30 days of the entry of an order awarding attorney fees was timely filed as to the issue of attorney fees holding that order awarding attorney fees in amount to be determined at later date was not final appealable order holding that a court has broad discretion in awarding attorney fees under the eaja but is not required to make an award in all cases where a party seeks supplemental or increased fees holding that reasonableness is the overarching consideration when awarding attorney fees citing hensley 461 us at 435 103 sct 1933