In Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO) v. City of Dallas (PDF:28), the 5th Circuit refused to grant a citizen plaintiff standing to recover its attorney`s fees in a Clean Water Act citizen suit against the City of Dallas. Although the plaintiff filed the initial suit, it did not intervene in the subsequent enforcement action EPA brought based on the same violations. Once EPA`s action against the City culminated in a consent decree, the district court dismissed the initial lawsuit as res judicata and the 5th Circuit affirmed that dismissal. The district court later dismissed ECO`s citizen suit to recover its attorney`s fees because it was not a ``prevailing or substantially prevailing party.`` The district court and, later, the 5th Circuit rejected ECO`s attempt to qualify as a prevailing party on the basis that its citizen suit was the catalyst that led to EPA`s action and ultimate recovery. The 5th Circuit noted that the catalyst theory has been rejected by recent cases, including Bukhannon Bd. & Care Home v. W.Va. Dep`t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001).