In the wake of a years-long lawsuit filed by Idaho Forest Group against the city of Bonners Ferry, the Boundary County district court is considering whether IFG should have to reimburse the city for its costs and attorney fees, totaling $588,370, or whether the city – and thus the city’s electric customers – should have to foot the bill.

IFG attorneys contend the lumber manufacturer should only have to pay the city $8,255.35 in mandatory costs. 

Boundary County District Judge Lamont Berecz said at a May 22 hearing that the arguments presented by both legals teams were “a lot to digest,” taking the case under advisement instead of giving a ruling from the bench. 

Boundary County prosecuting attorney Andrakay Pluid said the ruling could take weeks or possibly months. 

After the court dismissed the lawsuit in February, finding that the city’s electric rates for the industrial plant were not unjust, Pluid and the city’s hired legal team filed a memorandum of costs and attorney fees on April 24, stating that IFG should pay the city back for its attorney fees. 

“IFG was certainly entitled to challenge the reasonableness of the city’s rates under Idaho Code,” the memo states. “But having failed to prove its case, Idaho law requires IFG to reimburse the substantial attorney fees and costs the city incurred successfully defending the case. Just as with its challenge to the city’s rates, IFG cannot shift its responsibility for paying these expenses to the city’s other ratepayers.” 

IFG’s attorneys Andrew Moratzka and Nicole Hancock responded May 7 with a motion to disallow costs and fees. 

“IFG does not dispute that the city is the prevailing party in this matter,” the motion states. “But because the gravamen of IFG’s complaint has been one that arises under state statute, the city is not entitled to recover its fees. Moreover, IFG did not pursue this litigation or any of the claims frivolously. And finally, the city’s request for discretionary costs should be denied, as those costs were not exceptional, necessary or reasonably incurred.” 

The city replied in opposition to the motion, reiterating its statement that IFG’s argument is unsupported by Idaho law. 

“Notably, IFG does not dispute the reasonableness of the city’s attorney fees. Nor does it challenge the reasonableness of the city’s mandatory or discretionary costs. IFG instead challenges whether the city is eligible to recover its fees and costs.” 

IFG continued the exchange with a reply in support of the motion to disallow. 

“IFG explains, and reiterates in this reply, the flaws in the city’s arguments. The city’s request for attorneys’ fees under Idaho Code fails because this case arose under the Idaho statue that allowed IFG to challenge the reasonableness of its electric service rates. Moreover, IFG did not pursue the case frivolously, and the city’s discretionary costs were not so exceptional as to warrant IFG footing the bill.” 

Berecz’s ruling remains under consideration.