§ 504(b)(1)(C) (“ ‘[Ajdversary adjudication’ means (i) an adjudication ... in which the position of the United States is represented by counsel or otherwise, but excludes an adjudication for the purpose of ... granting or renewing a license .... ”); see also § 2412(d)(3) (allowing a federal court to award attorneys’ fees “to a prevailing party in any action for judicial review of an adversary action, as defined in [5 U.S.C. § 504(b)(1)(C)],” and to include fees incurred in administrative proceedings “to the same extent authorized in subsection (a)” of § 504). The parties agree that the administrative grazing-permit proceedings here are “licensing proceedings” outside the scope of § 504. See Western Watersheds Project v. Interior Bd. of Land Appeals, 624 F.3d 983, 987-90 (9th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). Thus, unlike the fee award in Quinhagak,
holding trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to physicians in absence of any evidence of attorneys fees holding motion for attorneys fees was necessary predicate holding that western watersheds in related litigation was not eligible for attorneys fees in adjudication for the purpose of granting or renewing grazing permits holding that request for attorneys fees should not result in a second major litigation holding that where a state statute provides for the award of attorneys fees those fees can be considered as part of the amount in controversy for the purpose of determining federal diversity jurisdiction