Case 2:09-cv KJM-KJN Document 136 Filed 02/19/15 Page 1 of 15

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Case 2:09-cv KJM-KJN Document 136 Filed 02/19/15 Page 1 of 15"

Transcription

1 Case :0-cv-0-KJM-KJN Document Filed 0// Page of BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney LYNN TRINKA ERNCE Assistant United States Attorney 0 I Street, Suite -0 Sacramento, CA Telephone: () -0 Attorneys for United States Forest Service IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 WINNEMEM WINTU TRIBE, in their tribal and individual capacities; CALEEN SISK, et al., v. Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, Defendant. Case No. :0-cv-0 KJM KJN UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE S CONSOLIDATED OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND REPLY IN SUPPORT OF FOREST SERVICE S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION Date: March, 0 Time: :00 p.m. Place: Courtroom, th Floor 0 I Street, Sacramento Judge: Hon. Kimberly J. Mueller

2 Case :0-cv-0-KJM-KJN Document Filed 0// Page of TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION... II. ARGUMENT... A. Plaintiffs Are Using This Lawsuit To Circumvent The Federal Recognition Process.... B. None Of The Affirmative Relief Plaintiffs Seek Is Available Under The APA.... C. The Forest Service Should Be Granted Summary Judgment On The Nosoni Creek Claims..... Even Under The New 00 MOU Theory, The Claims Are Time-Barred..... Plaintiffs Have Abandoned Their NHPA Claims About The Nosoni Bridge..... The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over The Nosoni Truck Ramp Claims.... D. Plaintiffs Old-Growth Manzanita Claim Is Meritless And Moot.... E. The Coonrod Flat Claim Is Moot.... F. The Forest Service Is Entitled To Summary Judgment On The Buck Saddle Claims.... G. The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over The Rocky Ridge Parking Lot Claims.... H. The Forest Service Is Entitled To Summary Judgment On The Antler s Bridge Claim... I. The Court Should Deny Plaintiffs Motion To Strike The Forest Service s Declarations.... III. CONCLUSION... 0 i

3 Case :0-cv-0-KJM-KJN Document Filed 0// Page of 0 I. INTRODUCTION The wide-ranging affirmative relief that plaintiffs ask the Court to order against the United States Forest Service ( Forest Service ) confirms that they are using this Administrative Procedure Act ( APA ) lawsuit to circumvent the United States Department of Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs administrative process for determining whether they meet the required criteria to become a federally recognized tribe. If the Court were to grant the requested relief, the Forest Service would be required to treat plaintiffs as though they are a federally recognized tribe under applicable federal statutes, when plaintiffs have not been granted that favored status by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Court has previously declined to inject itself into the federal recognition process, which is expressly left to the province of Congress, and the Court should again decline to do so now. Moreover, the relief that plaintiffs seek against the Forest Service is not the type of relief that the Court can grant under the APA. The Court should reject plaintiffs last-ditch efforts to avoid summary judgment by raising completely new claims that are not pleaded in their Fourth Amended Complaint ( FAC ). Focusing on the claims they actually pleaded, plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proving that: the claims not are time-barred or moot; the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over claims for which there has been no final agency action; any decision of the Forest Service was arbitrary and capricious; and the Forest Service did not comply with its statutory obligations. Accordingly, the Court should grant summary judgment in favor of the Forest Service and deny plaintiffs cross-motion in its entirety. II. ARGUMENT A. Plaintiffs Are Using This Lawsuit To Circumvent The Federal Recognition Process. In identifying the relief they want the Court to order against the Forest Service, plaintiffs do not request any relief that is specifically tailored to address the alleged harms set forth in the FAC. Instead, Winnemem Wintu v. U.S. Dep t of Interior, F. Supp. d, (E.D. Cal. 0) (dismissing as a nonjusticiable political question earlier claims that the Forest Service violated plaintiffs rights by not acknowledging them as a previously recognized tribe; While plaintiffs disingenuously contend that they do not seek federal recognition through this litigation... their constitutional claims necessarily require the court to inject itself in processes expressly left to the province of Congress ).

4 Case :0-cv-0-KJM-KJN Document Filed 0// Page of 0 plaintiffs want the Court to order relief that would obviate the need for them to prove through the federal recognition administrative process that they meet the criteria to be a federally recognized tribe. For example, their request that the Court grant them automatic consulting party status on all Forest Service undertakings under the National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA ) and the National Historic Preservation Act ( NHPA ), when they are only entitled to receive notice as members of the public under those statutes, would elevate plaintiffs to the status of a federally recognized Indian tribe without any formal determination of their status by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Plaintiffs also want the Court to require the Forest Service to enter into an agreement which favors plaintiffs use of sacred sites to the exclusion of others, and to determine that any cultural items held by the Forest Service belong to plaintiffs and should be repatriated to them. Simply put, plaintiffs want to the Court to order the Forest Service to accord them favored consulting status and treatment, contrary to the statutory requirements of the NHPA and NEPA, and to the detriment and exclusion of all other Wintu and other tribes. But their statement that other Wintu tribes and groups have officially deferred to [them] as the experts and traditional cultural practitioners, pending the result of the Tribe s recognition status, ignores that other Wintu tribes have come forward during this litigation to oppose plaintiffs prosecution of this lawsuit. See Dkt. No. at (letter from United Tribe of Northern California, Inc. stating that plaintiffs do not speak on behalf of all Winnemem Wintu Indian people. We do not recognize them as tribal or spiritual leaders... ); Id. at (stating that any sort of determination in favor of plaintiffs and their position is detrimental to other Winnemem Wintu people ); Dkt. No. 0 (stating that plaintiffs do not have the exclusive right to oversee or make decisions regarding our sacred sites and cemetery. They are but one faction of the people ). As this Court (Damrell, J.) previously confirmed, the action of the federal government in recognizing or failing to recognize a tribe has traditionally been held to be a political one not subject to judicial review. Winnemem, F. Supp. d at (internal quotations and citations omitted). Non-federally recognized tribes are entitled only to notice and information as interested members of the public. See, e.g., C.F.R. 00.(d) (NHPA); see also Winnemem, F. Supp. d at (plaintiffs lack standing to assert injuries to tribal interests).

5 Case :0-cv-0-KJM-KJN Document Filed 0// Page of 0 If plaintiffs want to be treated as a federally recognized tribe, and receive concomitant benefits and treatment, they must pursue federal recognition through the administrative process established by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Court should reject plaintiffs blatant efforts to sidestep the federal recognition process by using this lawsuit as a means to obtain status and treatment to which they are not statutorily entitled given their current status as a non-recognized tribe. B. None Of The Affirmative Relief Plaintiffs Seek Is Available Under The APA. All of plaintiffs claims against the Forest Service are brought under Section 0() of the APA (see FAC,, 0,,,, ), which permits a court to hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be... arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. U.S.C. 0(). Affirmative injunctive relief is not an appropriate remedy under Section 0(). Pinnacle Armor, Inc. v. United States, 0 WL, * n. (E.D. Cal. July 0, 0) (citing U.S.C. 0(); Slockish v. U.S. Fed. Highway Admin., F. Supp. d, (D. Or. 0)). Instead, remand is usually the appropriate remedy in Section 0() cases. See id. (citing Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. Envt l Protection Agency, 0 F.d, (th Cir. 00), rev d on other grounds, Nat l Ass n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, U.S., S. Ct., L. Ed. d (00)). Even if plaintiffs were to claim, contrary to their specific arbitrary and capricious allegations in the FAC, that they are asserting so-called failure to act claims under Section 0() of the APA, the Court still does not have the power to grant any of the wide-ranging affirmative relief that plaintiffs seek. Under Section 0(), courts are authorized to compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed. Pinnacle Armor. at * n. (citing U.S.C. 0(); Slockish, F. Supp. d at ). The Supreme Court has stressed the limits of district court authority under Section 0(), explaining that courts may only order action where an agency has failed to take a discrete agency action that it is required to take. Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, U.S., (00) As this Court has explained, When making claims for a failure to act, a plaintiff must show that an agency failed to take a discrete agency action that it is required to take. Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, U.S.,, S. Ct., L. Ed. d (00). A required act is one in the face of clear statutory duty or is of such a magnitude that it amounts to an abdication of statutory responsibility. ONRC Action v. BLM, 0 F.d, (th Cir. ) (quoting Public Citizen Health Research Group v. Comm r, Food and Drug Admin., 0 F.d, (D.C. Cir. )). Franco v. U.S. Dep t of Interior, 0 WL 00, * (E.D. Cal. July, 0).

6 Case :0-cv-0-KJM-KJN Document Filed 0// Page of 0 (emphasis in original) (describing such actions as ministerial or non-discretionary ); Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. United States Forest Serv., F.d, (th Cir. 0) ( [T]he purportedly withheld action must not only be discrete, but also legally required in the sense that the agency s legal obligation is so clearly set forth that it could traditionally have been enforced through a writ of mandamus ) (emphasis in original). The Supreme Court emphasized that, under the APA, courts are not empowered to enter general orders compelling compliance with broad statutory mandates. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, U.S. at. Thus, as the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly observed, [e]ven if a court believes that the agency is withholding or delaying an action the court believes it should take, the ability to compel agency action is carefully circumscribed to situations where an agency has ignored a specific legislative command. Gardner v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, F.d, - (th Cir. 0) (quoting Hells Canyon, F.d at ); see, e.g., Zixiang Li v. Kerry, F.d, 0 (th Cir. 0) (explaining that there is no judicial authority to compel agency action merely because the agency is not doing something [the plaintiff or the court] may think it should do ); Our Children s Earth Found. v. EPA, F.d, (th Cir. 00) ( To compel agency action..., [plaintiff] must point to a nondiscretionary duty that is readily-ascertainable, and not only... the product of a set of inferences based on the overall statutory scheme. (internal quotation marks omitted)). None of the relief that plaintiffs seek relates to non-performance of discrete actions that the Forest Service was legally required to take. Instead, plaintiffs demands are of the sort more commonly made during settlement negotiations. But the Forest Service cannot agree to treat plaintiffs more favorably than they are entitled to be treated under applicable statutes due to their non-recognized status and, since the requested relief does not seek to compel discrete, statutorily mandated actions by the Forest Service, the Court cannot order such relief under Section 0() either. Likewise, if the Court determines that any Forest Service decision was arbitrary and capricious, appropriate relief under Section 0() would be for the Court to set aside that specific decision and remand the matter to the Forest Service so that it can comply with its statutory obligations. Defenders of Wildlife, 0 F.d at. It would not be to order the affirmative relief that plaintiffs have requested.

7 Case :0-cv-0-KJM-KJN Document Filed 0// Page of 0 C. The Forest Service Should Be Granted Summary Judgment On The Nosoni Creek Claims.. Even Under The New 00 MOU Theory, The Claims Are Time-Barred. In an effort to avoid summary judgment on their Nosoni Creek claims based on the Forest Service s statute of limitations defense, plaintiffs argue for the first time that the final agency action at issue is not the Forest Service s May 000 Decision Memo on the Nosoni Bridge project or the alleged construction of a truck ramp at Nosoni Creek in 00 or 00. See FAC, -, -. They now claim that the final agency action at issue is the signing of a 00 Memorandum of Understanding ( 00 MOU ). Dkt. No. - at :-. Therefore, they argue that their Nosoni Creek claims are not time-barred because they filed suit within six years of the 00 MOU. Id. But plaintiffs Nosoni Creek claims in the FAC are very specific and have nothing to do with a 00 MOU. FAC, -, -. Instead, plaintiffs allege that the Forest Service violated the NHPA by: not designating the Nosoni Bridge as a historic site; not undertaking a Section evaluation for the bridge project; and approving the bridge project in 000 without consulting them. Id.,. They also allege that the Forest Service constructed a truck ramp in 00 or 00 without an appropriate NEPA analysis. Id.,,. There is no allegation anywhere in the FAC about a 00 MOU and there is no such claim in this lawsuit. It is apparent that the 00 MOU is being raised now solely to avoid the APA s six-year statute of limitations. U.S.C. 0. But, even if the FAC did include allegations about the 00 MOU, the claims still would be time-barred because any claim based on the 00 MOU had to be filed within six years by 0. Id. The FAC was filed in 0, so any such claims would be untimely. In any event, if plaintiffs wanted to assert a claim based on the 00 MOU, they had to seek leave to amend the complaint by no later than November, 0. Dkt. No. at. Plaintiffs should not be permitted to raise entirely new claims in the midst of summary judgment briefing. Allowing new claims to proceed after over five years of litigation would be very prejudicial to the Forest Service, and no good cause exists under Rule (b) to modify the scheduling order to permit amendment at this very late date. In sum, the Forest Service is entitled to summary judgment because, under any of plaintiffs theories, the Nosoni Creek claims are time-barred.

8 Case :0-cv-0-KJM-KJN Document Filed 0// Page of 0. Plaintiffs Have Abandoned Their NHPA Claims About The Nosoni Bridge. Plaintiffs have abandoned their claims that the Forest Service violated the NHPA not designating the Nosoni Bridge as a historic site; not undertaking a Section evaluation for the bridge project; and approving the bridge project without consulting them because they have not responded to any of the Forest Service s evidence and argument on these issues, and they have not cited to any evidence in the record to meet their burden of proving these claims. Instead, plaintiffs attempt to assert a new claim against the Forest Service that, in installing the new bridge, it did not do what it agreed it would do to protect traditional cultural properties. Dkt. No. - at. But no such claim is asserted in the FAC. Nor have plaintiffs identified what mitigation measures under NEPA were not implemented. They only argue that, in August 00, a large amount of dirt was placed on the old road bed and the home site and grape vines were destroyed and buried. Id. The statute of limitations on such a claim ran more than six years ago, so the claim is time-barred.. The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over The Nosoni Truck Ramp Claims. Plaintiffs have not cited any evidence in the administrative record to prove that the Forest Service constructed a truck ramp at Nosoni Creek, and all of the evidence cited by the Forest Service proves that no such project exists. See Dkt. No. - at :0-. Since there has not been any major federal action or final agency action to build a truck ramp at Nosoni Creek, the Forest Service had no obligations under the NHPA or the NEPA. Therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction over such claims, and plaintiffs lack standing to assert them. Without pointing to any evidence in the record, plaintiffs speculate that users of the truck ramp had to possess a permit or other authority by the Forest Service, which would be an NHPA undertaking that would trigger Section. Dkt. No. - at :-. This is another brand-new claim that is not in the FAC, so it is not properly before the Court. Instead, plaintiffs have submitted a declaration of Luisa Navejas, which is improper extrarecord evidence that should be excluded. However, the Navejas declaration confirms that the dirt was deposited at Nosoni Creek around 00, so it supports the Forest Service s statute of limitations defense. Notably, Ms. Navejas does not identify who deposited the dirt at the site, and she does not state that the Forest Service did this. Nothing in the Navejas declaration proves that the Forest Service actually undertook a project to construct a truck ramp at Nosoni Creek or that it dumped dirt at the site. The undated photos attached to the declaration do not support plaintiffs claim. If anything, the photos support the Forest Service s position that no truck ramp has been constructed at Nosoni Creek.

9 Case :0-cv-0-KJM-KJN Document Filed 0// Page of D. Plaintiffs Old-Growth Manzanita Claim Is Meritless And Moot. Plaintiffs admit that the Forest Service consulted with them about the Gilman Road Shaded Fuelbreak project. Dkt. No. - at - ( In 00, the Forest Service consulted with the Tribe regarding a plan to remove shrubs and small trees along Gilman Road, which included the Dekkas site ). Therefore, they have conceded that their NHPA consultation claim is meritless. This is consistent with evidence in the record proving that plaintiffs had actual notice of, and participated in the NHPA/NEPA process. See Winnemem, F. Supp. d at ; AR -,, 0,. Their claim also is timebarred. See Dkt. No. - at :-. Regarding the claim that the Forest Service violated the Programmatic Agreement, the only alleged violation that plaintiffs have identified is that, in 00, old-growth manzanita was cut during implementation of the shaded fuelbreak project. Dkt. No. - at -. The Court should reject this claim under the NHPA for the following reasons. First, plaintiffs cannot establish that cutting the manzanita was a final agency action reviewable under the APA. See Winnemem, F. Supp. d at (noting that, by alleging that the Forest Service cut old-growth manzanita, plaintiffs had not identified any final agency action under the NHPA nor any major federal action under NEPA). Id. at. The only final agency action was the June 00 Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Gilman shaded fuelbreak project (AR ), and any claims related to the DN and FONSI are time-barred since they were not raised until 0. Dkt. No. ; U.S.C. 0(a). Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction over this claim. 0 Since plaintiffs have not addressed the claims that the Forest Service violated the Programmatic Agreement by not preparing accurate annual reports, not monitoring project activities, and not making annual reports available to the public, they apparently have conceded those claims. Plaintiffs argue that the Forest Service violated both the NHPA and the NEPA. See Dkt. No. - at. But there is no NEPA claim regarding Dekkas in the FAC. See FAC, -. And, even if there were a NEPA claim for Dekkas, it would lack merit. Judge Damrell noted in 0 that, even assuming that cutting old-growth manzanita trees might qualify as a major federal action, plaintiffs fail to specify how the USFS allegedly violated NEPA with this action. Plaintiffs do not allege that the USFS failed to prepare an EIS or EA and do not allege that the cutting was not encompassed within a categorical exclusion. Further, plaintiffs do not plead any facts establishing that they have exhausted any available administrative remedies. Id. Plaintiffs still have not alleged or met any of these requirements for a NEPA claim. Accordingly, any claim by plaintiffs claim that the Forest Service violated the NEPA by cutting old-growth manzanita would fail.

10 Case :0-cv-0-KJM-KJN Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Second, nothing in the Programmatic Agreement specifies that the old-growth manzanita at Dekkas should not be cut, so it is unclear how cutting the manzanita would violate the terms of that agreement. Additionally, plaintiffs are not a consulting party to the agreement, so they cannot prove that they have standing to assert a violation of that agreement. See AR -. Furthermore, the agreement specifies the process by which members of the public, such as plaintiffs, may comment on proposed undertakings and on implementation, and the public must follow those procedures as well as regulatory procedures for appealing agency decisions. See AR (Section IX.E.) Plaintiffs have not shown that they exhausted administrative remedies by complying with these procedural requirements. Third, the Court previously rejected plaintiffs claims for the cutting of the old-growth manzanita and plaintiffs have not done anything to cure the defects. They originally sued for damage to the oldgrowth manzanita under the Federal Tort Claims Act ( FTCA ). See Original Complaint, Dkt. No.,, -, -. Judge Damrell dismissed these claims because plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their FTCA administrative remedies. See Dkt. No. at. After the FTCA claims failed, plaintiffs asserted the same claim about the manzanita under the NHPA instead. See First Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 0, -,. Judge Damrell dismissed the NHPA claim because plaintiffs do not allege that any portion of the Dekkas Site is eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Winnemem, F. Supp. d at 0. Plaintiffs have not shown that Dekkas or the manzanita is eligible for the National Register. Fourth, as this Court previously has noted, the NHPA is a procedural statute. Franco v. U.S. Dep t of the Interior, 0 WL 00, at * (E.D. Cal. July, 0) (citing Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone of Nevada v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 0 F.d, (th Cir. 0)). Section of NHPA is a stop, look, and listen provision that requires each federal agency to consider the effects of its programs. Id. (citations omitted). Thus, the NHPA is a strictly procedural statute that does not confer substantive rights and does not dictate particular outcome. See Te-Moak, 0 F.d at 0,. Finally, because the old-growth manzanita cannot be restored, plaintiffs claims are moot. See Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Management, F.d, - (th Cir. 0) (holding that claims for declaratory and injunctive relief regarding logged trees were moot: Where the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred, and the [] courts cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot. ) (citations omitted).

11 Case :0-cv-0-KJM-KJN Document Filed 0// Page of 0 E. The Coonrod Flat Claim Is Moot. The only Coonrod Flat claim before the Court is plaintiffs allegation that, in 00, the Forest Service violated the NHPA by granting a cattle grazing permit without conducting a Section analysis. FAC,. The Forest Service has shown that the 00/00 modified permit upon which this claim is based no longer exists, having been replaced and superseded by a new 0 permit. See Dkt. No. - at :-:. Therefore, there is no present controversy as to which the Court can grant effective relief as to 00/00 permit, and plaintiffs claim as to that permit is moot. Tur v. Youtube, Inc., F.d, (th Cir. 00). Recognizing that their NHPA challenge fails, plaintiffs now resort to a new argument: that the Forest Service has violated the Programmatic Agreement by not demarcating or excluding Coonrod Flat from the grazing permit and not monitoring the site. Dkt. No. - at. But there is no such claim alleged in the FAC based upon violation of the Programmatic Agreement or otherwise; nor is there any claim that the Forest Service did not consult with plaintiffs prior to issuing the grazing permit. See FAC,. Such claims therefore are not before the Court and the Court should disregard them. Additionally, plaintiffs new claim that the Forest Service violated the Programmatic Agreement regarding Coonrod Flat also suffers from the same defects that preclude such a claim regarding Dekkas. See supra at II.D. Nor can plaintiffs make substantive challenges to the Section analysis performed in 00 for the 0 permit for the first time during summary judgment briefing. Since that claim is not in the FAC, the Court should disregard it. Plaintiffs argue that the claim is not moot because they are more broadly claiming that the Forest Service is allowing Coonrod Flat to be damaged. But, as shown in section II.B above, the Court s power under the APA is limited to setting aside a final agency action that was arbitrary and capricious (Section 0()) or compelling the Forest Service to take a discrete action that was it was statutorily required to take (Section 0()). Plaintiffs more general claim that the Forest Service is allowing Coonrod Flat to be damaged falls under neither category of APA claim. Plaintiffs specific claim against the Forest Service in the FAC is that it did not conduct a Section analysis for the 00 modified grazing permit. The Forest Service has shown that such claim is moot, and plaintiffs have not proved otherwise.

12 Case :0-cv-0-KJM-KJN Document Filed 0// Page of 0 F. The Forest Service Is Entitled To Summary Judgment On The Buck Saddle Claims. The Forest Service has proved that it complied with the NEPA and the NHPA for the Clikapudi Trail Loop at the Buck Saddle site by using NEPA public notification processes and by conducting a categorical exclusion for the project. See Dkt. No. - at :-:. The NHPA requires that the Forest Service provide the public with information about an undertaking and its effects on historic properties and seek public comment and input. C.F.R. 00.(d)(). Plaintiffs claim that the Forest Service did not send the Schedule of Proposed Actions ( SOPA ) for the project to Caleen Sisk at her Redding, California address, but they do not explicitly state that they did not know about the project. Nor do they address the fact that evidence in the record shows that the Forest Service listed the project on its website and in local papers. The NHPA does not require that plaintiffs receive direct notice of all undertakings. Such treatment is reserved for federally recognized Indian tribes. See C.F.R. 00.(c). The Forest Service s public notification process including the mailing and publishing information on its website and local papers satisfied its obligations to provide the public with information and to seek public comment and input. The Court should disregard plaintiffs belated attempt to challenge the sufficiency of the notice of the bike trail loop in the SOPA because there is no such claim asserted in the FAC, even though the SOPA and other notices about the project have been in the administrative record since November 0. Accordingly, that claim is not before the Court for decision. Likewise, any claim regarding the Forest Service s determination in October 0 that the sacred prayer rock at Buck Saddle was not an archaeological feature is not before the Court. That claim is not alleged in the FAC even though the October 0 memorandum regarding this issue has been in the administrative record since November 0. Plaintiffs apparently have abandoned their claims that the Forest Service violated Section of the NHPA by not developing a protection plan before allowing the bike path to be created because they have not responded to the Forest Service s arguments on that issue and they have not presented any evidence in the record to support such a claim. FAC,.

13 Case :0-cv-0-KJM-KJN Document Filed 0// Page of 0 G. The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over The Rocky Ridge Parking Lot Claims. Plaintiffs have not identified any evidence in the administrative record to prove that the Forest Service has given Jones Valley Resort a permit for a parking lot at Rocky Ridge, or that the Forest Service has approved an overflow parking lot project, as alleged in the FAC. FAC,,. Since no Rocky Ridge parking lot project exists, there is no final agency action and no injury-in-fact, plaintiffs lack standing to pursue this claim, and the Court lacks jurisdiction. Moreover, since there is no Rocky Ridge parking lot project, no NHPA Section analysis is required and the claim fails on the merits. The Court should disregard plaintiffs new arguments that the Forest Service has violated the Programmatic Agreement by not implementing protection measures in connection with the granting of a parking permit to Jones Valley Resort. See Dkt. No. - at :-. They have not alleged such a claim in the FAC, so it is not properly before the Court. And any claim based on the Programmatic Agreement would suffer from the same defects that preclude such a claim as to Dekkas. See supra at II.D. In any event, since the Forest Service has not granted a parking permit to Jones Valley Resort (see Dkt. No. - at :-), any claim based on the granting of such a permit fails. Since there is no final agency action, plaintiffs claim fails for lack of standing and the Court lacks jurisdiction. H. The Forest Service Is Entitled To Summary Judgment On The Antler s Bridge Claim. The only Antler s Bridge claim properly before the Court is plaintiffs assertion that the Forest Service did not consult with them regarding the ARPA permit issued to CalTrans in October 0. FAC,. The Forest Service has shown that it was not required to consult with or give plaintiffs notice about the permit because they are not a federally recognized tribe. See Dkt. No. - at. Regardless, however, evidence in the administrative record proves that plaintiffs received actual notice of, and participated in, meetings about the ARPA permit and future excavations, and were given an opportunity to review key documents and agreements and to be a concurring party, but declined. See Dkt. No. - at -0 (citing AR 0-0, -,,, -). Indeed, plaintiffs admit in their brief that they were consulted regarding the ARPA permit and provided input into that process. See Docket - at (stating the Winnemem and the Redding Rancheria requested that any recovered cultural materials be reburied ). By this admission, and their failure to raise any argument or evidence to prove an ARPA consultation violation, plaintiffs effectively have conceded this claim.

14 Case :0-cv-0-KJM-KJN Document Filed 0// Page of Since they cannot prove their consultation claim, plaintiffs now claim for the first time that discovery of a midden deposit in January 0, which led up to the issuance of the CalTrans ARPA permit in October 0, was a late discovery that required a Section evaluation under the NHPA. Dkt. No. - at :-. They also claim that the Forest Service violated NHPA communication and documentation requirements about its permit decision set forth in C.F.R. 00. and 00.. Id. at :-:. But the FAC does not assert any Antler s Bridge NHPA claim against the Forest Service. Therefore, these brand-new NHPA claims are not before the Court. I. The Court Should Deny Plaintiffs Motion To Strike The Forest Service s Declarations. Plaintiffs have moved to strike the declarations of Kristy Cottini, Winfield Henn, and Peter Schmidt cited by the Forest Service has cited in support of its summary judgment motion. Arguing that the Court s review of administrative decisions is limited to a review of the record, plaintiffs claim that the Forest Service s declarations are inappropriate and should not be considered. However, the cases that plaintiffs cite to support this argument are inapposite. The Forest Service is not offering the declarations to supplement the administrative record for the Court s review and determination of the merits of plaintiffs APA claims. Instead, the Forest Service offers the declarations as evidence to support its factual attack on the Court s jurisdiction, including over the Nosoni Bridge truck ramp and Rocky Ridge parking lot claims, because there is no final agency action as to either claim that can be reviewed by the Court under the APA. It is well established that 0 jurisdiction is a threshold issue that must be addressed prior to any consideration of the merits of a case. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env t, U.S., -, S. Ct. 0, 0 L. Ed. d (). Plaintiffs also have moved to strike an October, 0 memo (AR -) from the record. However, that document has been in the administrative record since it was originally filed in November 0 and the deadline for plaintiffs to file motions on the adequacy of the administrative record was February, 0. See Dkt. No.. With the exception of the Schmidt declaration, these are the same declarations that the Forest Service submitted to support its factual attacks on jurisdiction in motions to dismiss earlier complaints. In connection with the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, the Court declined to consider declarations because the declarants had not been deposed. See Franco, 0 WL 00 at *. The Court later ordered that no discovery would be permitted in this APA action. Dkt. No. at. Accordingly, the Forest Service submits that it is proper for the Court to consider the declarations now to determine the preliminary issue of whether there is final agency action and, therefore, subject matter jurisdiction, over plaintiffs claims.

15 Case :0-cv-0-KJM-KJN Document Filed 0// Page of Even if the Court excludes the Forest Service s declarations, however, the Forest Service still must prevail because there is no evidence in the record to prove that the Forest Service ever undertook to construct a truck ramp at Nosoni Creek and an overflow parking lot at Rocky Ridge. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.... It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., U.S.,, S. Ct. () (internal citations omitted). Since there is no evidence in the record of any final agency action regarding a Nosoni Creek truck ramp or a Rocky Ridge parking lot, plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of establishing that the Court has jurisdiction under the APA. III. CONCLUSION The Court should grant summary judgment in favor of the United States Forest Service on all of plaintiffs claims in the fourth amended complaint, and it should deny plaintiffs cross-summary judgment motion in its entirety. 0 DATED: February, 0 By: BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney /s/ Lynn Trinka Ernce LYNN TRINKA ERNCE Assistant United States Attorney

Ezekiel Rediker (pro hac vice) REED SMITH LLP 1301 K St. N.W. Washington, DC Tel. No. (202)

Ezekiel Rediker (pro hac vice) REED SMITH LLP 1301 K St. N.W. Washington, DC Tel. No. (202) Case :0-cv-00-KJM-KJN Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Ezekiel Rediker (pro hac vice) 0 K St. N.W. Washington, DC 00 Tel. No. () -0 erediker@reedsmith.com Attorney for the Winnemem Wintu Tribe WINNEMEM WINTU

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :0-cv-0-BEN-BLM Document Filed 0//0 Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DANIEL TARTAKOVSKY, MOHAMMAD HASHIM NASEEM, ZAHRA JAMSHIDI, MEHDI HORMOZAN, vs. Plaintiffs,

More information

Case 2:13-cv KJM-KJN Document 30 Filed 05/09/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

Case 2:13-cv KJM-KJN Document 30 Filed 05/09/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case :-cv-00-kjm-kjn Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of KENNETH R. WILLIAMS, State Bar No. 0 Attorney at Law 0 th Street, th Floor Sacramento, CA Telephone: () - Attorney for Plaintiffs Jamul Action Committee,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Case:-cv-0-MEJ Document Filed0// Page of 0 CITY OF OAKLAND, v. Northern District of California Plaintiff, ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General of the United States; MELINDA HAAG, U.S. Attorney for the Northern

More information

Case 4:15-cv JSW Document 76 Filed 09/28/16 Page 1 of 12

Case 4:15-cv JSW Document 76 Filed 09/28/16 Page 1 of 12 Case :-cv-0-jsw Document Filed 0// Page of 0 JOHN C. CRUDEN Assistant Attorney General Environment & Natural Resources Division United States Department of Justice DAVID B. GLAZER (D.C. 00) Natural Resources

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case :-cv-00-pgr Document Filed 0// Page of WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 0 The Navajo Nation, vs. Plaintiff, The United States Department of the Interior, et al.,

More information

Case 2:12-cv JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 01/30/13 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 2:12-cv JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 01/30/13 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-cv-00-jam-ac Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 CACHIL DEHE BAND OF WINTUN INDIANS OF THE COLUSA INDIAN COMMUNITY, a federally recognized

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA NORTHERN ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER, et al., v. Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00030-SLG

More information

Case 1:17-cv MJG Document 146 Filed 04/25/18 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Case 1:17-cv MJG Document 146 Filed 04/25/18 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Case 1:17-cv-02459-MJG Document 146 Filed 04/25/18 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND BROCK STONE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case 1:17-cv-02459-MJG DONALD J. TRUMP,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA Case :-cv-0-bhs Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 0 FRANK S LANDING INDIAN COMMUNITY, v. Plaintiff, NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION, et

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO Case 4:14-cv-00007-EJL Document 40 Filed 01/17/14 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO RALPH MAUGHAN, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT, WILDERNESS WATCH,

More information

Pit River Tribe v. U.S. Forest Service

Pit River Tribe v. U.S. Forest Service Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Case Summaries 2010-2011 Pit River Tribe v. U.S. Forest Service Matt Newman Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/plrlr Recommended

More information

Case 3:16-cv LRH-WGC Document 125 Filed 03/28/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * *

Case 3:16-cv LRH-WGC Document 125 Filed 03/28/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * Case :-cv-00-lrh-wgc Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * 0 0 BATTLE MOUNTAIN BAND of the TE- MOAK TRIBE OF WESTERN SHOSHONE INDIANS, v. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES

More information

Case 2:15-cv MCE-DAD Document 11 Filed 05/29/15 Page 1 of 2 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 2:15-cv MCE-DAD Document 11 Filed 05/29/15 Page 1 of 2 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-cv-000-mce-dad Document Filed 0// Page of 0 JOHN C. CRUDEN Assistant Attorney General Environment & Natural Resources Division United States Department of Justice JOHN P. TUSTIN (TX 0) DAVENÉ D.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION Case :-cv-00-sba Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION 0 RESOURCE RENEWAL INSTITUTE, CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, and WESTERN

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv DLG.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv DLG. Case: 14-11084 Date Filed: 12/19/2014 Page: 1 of 16 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-11084 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-22737-DLG AARON CAMACHO

More information

Case 4:15-cv JSW Document 157 Filed 03/30/18 Page 1 of 21 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 4:15-cv JSW Document 157 Filed 03/30/18 Page 1 of 21 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-cv-0-jsw Document Filed 0/0/ Page of NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 COYOTE VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA, et al., v. Plaintiffs, UNITED

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION Case 1:16-cv-00011-BMM Document 175 Filed 06/23/17 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION NORTHERN ARAPAHO TRIBE, for itself and as parens patriea,

More information

Case 5:16-cv LHK Document 79 Filed 01/18/19 Page 1 of 13

Case 5:16-cv LHK Document 79 Filed 01/18/19 Page 1 of 13 Case :-cv-0-lhk Document Filed 0// Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION OCEANA, INC., Plaintiff, v. WILBUR ROSS, et al., Defendants. Case No. -CV-0-LHK

More information

Nos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Nos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Nos. 05-16975, 05-17078 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE et al., Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross- Appellants, v. NANCY RUTHENBECK, District Ranger, Hot Springs

More information

Case 1:06-cv JR Document 19 Filed 10/01/2007 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:06-cv JR Document 19 Filed 10/01/2007 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:06-cv-02249-JR Document 19 Filed 10/01/2007 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THE OSAGE TRIBE OF INDIANS ) OF OKLAHOMA v. ) Civil Action No. 04-0283 (JR) KEMPTHORNE,

More information

United States District Court

United States District Court Case:-cv-0-PJH Document Filed0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, et al., Plaintiffs, No. C - PJH 0 v. ORDER RE CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

More information

Case 4:15-cv JSW Document 31 Filed 02/22/16 Page 1 of 21

Case 4:15-cv JSW Document 31 Filed 02/22/16 Page 1 of 21 Case :-cv-0-jsw Document Filed 0// Page of 0 JOHN C. CRUDEN Assistant Attorney General Environment & Natural Resources Division United States Department of Justice DAVID B. GLAZER (D.C. 00) Natural Resources

More information

Case 1:16-cv LRS Document 14 Filed 09/01/16

Case 1:16-cv LRS Document 14 Filed 09/01/16 0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON KLICKITAT COUNTY, a ) political subdivision of the State of ) No. :-CV-000-LRS Washington, ) ) Plaintiff, ) MOTION TO DISMISS ) ) vs. ) )

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION WESTERN ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS, et al. CV 16-21-GF-BMM Plaintiffs, vs. U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, an

More information

Case 3:17-cv WHO Document 51 Filed 01/05/18 Page 1 of 14

Case 3:17-cv WHO Document 51 Filed 01/05/18 Page 1 of 14 Case :-cv-0-who Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 Gary J. Smith (SBN BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND, P.C. Montgomery Street, Suite 00 San Francisco, CA 0- Telephone: ( -000 Facsimile: ( -00 gsmith@bdlaw.com Peter J.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-cv-0-jls-jma Document Filed // Page of Bradley Bledsoe Downes (CA SBN: ) BLEDSOE DOWNES, PC 0 East Thistle Landing Drive Suite 00 Phoenix, AZ 0 T: 0.. F: 0.. bdownes@bdrlaw.com Attorney for Defendant-in-Intervention

More information

Case 1:13-cv TFH Document 19 Filed 11/22/13 Page 1 of 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:13-cv TFH Document 19 Filed 11/22/13 Page 1 of 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case 1:13-cv-00601-TFH Document 19 Filed 11/22/13 Page 1 of 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SISSETON WAHPETON OYATE OF THE LAKE TRAVERSE RESERVATION, et al., v. Plaintiffs,

More information

Case 2:15-cv JCC Document 61 Filed 11/26/18 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

Case 2:15-cv JCC Document 61 Filed 11/26/18 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Case :-cv-0-jcc Document Filed // Page of THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 PUGET SOUNDKEEPER ALLIANCE, et al., v. Plaintiffs, ANDREW

More information

Case 9:13-cv DWM Document 27 Filed 05/08/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION

Case 9:13-cv DWM Document 27 Filed 05/08/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION Case 9:13-cv-00057-DWM Document 27 Filed 05/08/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION FILED MAY 082014 Clerk. u.s District Court District Of Montana

More information

Case 3:16-cv LRH-WGC Document 92 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Case 3:16-cv LRH-WGC Document 92 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA Case :-cv-00-lrh-wgc Document Filed // Page of 0 Laura K. Granier, Esq. (NSB ) laura.granier@dgslaw.com 0 W. Liberty Street, Suite 0 Reno, Nevada 0 () -/ () 0- (Tel./Fax) Attorneys for Carlin Resources,

More information

Case 3:16-cv LRH-WGC Document 119 Filed 06/01/17 Page 1 of 13

Case 3:16-cv LRH-WGC Document 119 Filed 06/01/17 Page 1 of 13 Case :-cv-00-lrh-wgc Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 Rollie Wilson (Pro Hac Vice) Jeffrey S. Rasmussen (Pro Hac Vice) 00 Plaza Drive Louisville, CO 00 Phone: (0) -00 Facsimile: (0) - Email: rwilson@ndnlaw.com

More information

Case 2:16-cv SWS Document 226 Filed 04/16/18 Page 1 of 7

Case 2:16-cv SWS Document 226 Filed 04/16/18 Page 1 of 7 Case 2:16-cv-00285-SWS Document 226 Filed 04/16/18 Page 1 of 7 Eric P. Waeckerlin Pro Hac Vice Samuel Yemington Wyo. Bar No. 75150 Holland & Hart LLP 555 17th Street, Suite 3200 Tel: 303.892.8000 Fax:

More information

Case 5:15-cv JLV Document 41 Filed 12/04/15 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 518 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION

Case 5:15-cv JLV Document 41 Filed 12/04/15 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 518 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION Case 5:15-cv-05062-JLV Document 41 Filed 12/04/15 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 518 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION CURTIS TEMPLE, CIV. 15-5062-JLV Plaintiff, v. DEFENDANT

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. MEMORANDUM OPINION (June 14, 2016)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. MEMORANDUM OPINION (June 14, 2016) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SIERRA CLUB, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and GINA McCARTHY, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection

More information

March 13, 2017 ORDER. Background

March 13, 2017 ORDER. Background United States Department of the Interior Office of Hearings and Appeals Interior Board of Land Appeals 801 N. Quincy St., Suite 300 Arlington, VA 22203 703-235-3750 703-235-8349 (fax) March 13, 2017 2017-75

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case 1:16-cv-00011-BMM Document 45 Filed 03/29/16 Page 1 of 12 Mark A. Echo Hawk (pro hac vice ECHO HAWK & OLSEN, PLLC 505 Pershing Ave., Suite 100 PO Box 6119 Pocatello, Idaho 83205-6119 Phone: (208 478-1624

More information

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

In the United States Court of Federal Claims In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 03-2371C (Filed November 3, 2003) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SPHERIX, INC., * * Plaintiff, * * Bid protest; Public v. * interest

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION Case 4:16-cv-00021-BMM Document 34 Filed 01/25/17 Page 1 of 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION WESTERN ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS, et al. CV

More information

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AN AUTHORITIES

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AN AUTHORITIES Case :-cv-000-ckj Document 0 Filed 0// Page of 0 0 0 ELIZABETH A. STRANGE First Assistant United States Attorney District of Arizona J. COLE HERNANDEZ Assistant U.S. Attorney Arizona State Bar No. 00 e-mail:

More information

Case 4:17-cv JSW Document 39 Filed 03/21/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 4:17-cv JSW Document 39 Filed 03/21/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-cv-0-jsw Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 PINEROS Y CAMPESINOS UNIDOS DEL NOROESTE, et al., v. Plaintiffs, E. SCOTT PRUITT, et al., Defendants.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Lexington) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) *** *** *** ***

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Lexington) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) *** *** *** *** Case: 5:17-cv-00351-DCR Doc #: 19 Filed: 03/15/18 Page: 1 of 11 - Page ID#: 440 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Lexington THOMAS NORTON, et al., V. Plaintiffs,

More information

Case 1:05-cv JGP Document 79 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:05-cv JGP Document 79 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:05-cv-01181-JGP Document 79 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MICHIGAN GAMBLING OPPOSITION ( MichGO, a Michigan non-profit corporation, Plaintiff,

More information

Case 1:12-cv BAH Document 105 Filed 12/22/14 Page 1 of 27

Case 1:12-cv BAH Document 105 Filed 12/22/14 Page 1 of 27 Case 1:12-cv-02039-BAH Document 105 Filed 12/22/14 Page 1 of 27 JOHN C. CRUDEN Assistant Attorney General GINA L. ALLERY J. NATHANAEL WATSON U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE United States Department of Justice

More information

Case 1:13-cv BJR Document 29 Filed 11/18/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:13-cv BJR Document 29 Filed 11/18/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:13-cv-00850-BJR Document 29 Filed 11/18/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE GRAND RONDE COMMUNITY OF OREGON, and CLARK

More information

Case 1:08-cv RPM Document 124 Filed 08/21/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 13

Case 1:08-cv RPM Document 124 Filed 08/21/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 13 Case 1:08-cv-02577-RPM Document 124 Filed 08/21/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch Civil Action No. 08-cv-00451-RPM

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. v. ) No. 1:02 CV 2156 (RWR) DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. v. ) No. 1:02 CV 2156 (RWR) DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ORANNA BUMGARNER FELTER, ) et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. 1:02 CV 2156 (RWR) ) GALE NORTON, ) Secretary of the Interior, et al. ) ) Defendants.

More information

Case 3:16-cv LRH-WGC Document 103 Filed 04/06/17 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Case 3:16-cv LRH-WGC Document 103 Filed 04/06/17 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA Case :-cv-00-lrh-wgc Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 JEFFREY H. WOOD Acting Assistant Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division PETER KRYN DYKEMA ADAM M.

More information

Appellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 02/10/2016 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

Appellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 02/10/2016 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Appellate Case: 15-8126 Document: 01019569175 Date Filed: 02/10/2016 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT STATE OF WYOMING, et al; Petitioners - Appellees, and STATE OR NORTH DAKOTA,

More information

Case 1:18-cv CKK Document 16 Filed 01/07/19 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:18-cv CKK Document 16 Filed 01/07/19 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:18-cv-00891-CKK Document 16 Filed 01/07/19 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JULIA CAVAZOS, et al., Plaintiffs v. RYAN ZINKE, et al., Defendants Civil Action

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. NO. CV LRS LICENSING, et al. ) ) Plaintiffs,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. NO. CV LRS LICENSING, et al. ) ) Plaintiffs, Case :-cv-0-lrs Document Filed 0/0/ 0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT NO. CV---LRS LICENSING, et al. ) ) Plaintiffs, ) MOTION

More information

Case 1:16-cv JDB Document 56 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:16-cv JDB Document 56 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:16-cv-02113-JDB Document 56 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AARP, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Case No.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA Case :-cv-0-bhs Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA JOSE SANCHEZ, ISMAEL RAMOS CONTRERAS, and ERNEST FRIMES, on behalf of themselves and all

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendants.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendants. Case :-cv-00-wqh-ags Document Filed 0// PageID. Page of 0 0 CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a municipal corporation, v. MONSANTO COMPANY; SOLUTIA, INC.; and PHARMACIA CORPORATION, HAYES, Judge: UNITED STATES DISTRICT

More information

Case 2:11-cv JAM-KJN Document 70 Filed 05/28/14 Page 1 of 5

Case 2:11-cv JAM-KJN Document 70 Filed 05/28/14 Page 1 of 5 Case :-cv-0-jam-kjn Document 0 Filed 0// Page of 0 BOUTIN JONES INC. Robert R. Rubin, SBN Michael E. Chase, SBN 0 Bruce M. Timm, SBN Kimberly A. Lucia, SBN 0 Capitol Mall, Suite 00 Sacramento, CA -0 Tel:

More information

Administrative & Judicial Challenges to Environmental Permits. Greg L. Johnson

Administrative & Judicial Challenges to Environmental Permits. Greg L. Johnson Administrative & Judicial Challenges to Environmental Permits Greg L. Johnson A Professional Law Corporation New Orleans Lafayette Houston 1 Outline Challenges to Permits issued by LDEQ Public Trust Doctrine

More information

Case 1:13-cv RMC Document 29 Filed 07/30/14 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:13-cv RMC Document 29 Filed 07/30/14 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:13-cv-00365-RMC Document 29 Filed 07/30/14 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WILLIAM C. TUTTLE ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. v. ) 1:13-cv-00365-RMC

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE DIVISION. No. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) INTRODUCTION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE DIVISION. No. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) INTRODUCTION CLERKS OFFICE U.S. DIST. COURT AT CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE DIVISION JULIA C. DUDLEY, CLERK BY: /s/ J. JONES DEPUTY

More information

Case 3:16-cv CWR-FKB Document 66 Filed 09/12/17 Page 1 of 6

Case 3:16-cv CWR-FKB Document 66 Filed 09/12/17 Page 1 of 6 Case 3:16-cv-00034-CWR-FKB Document 66 Filed 09/12/17 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF V. CAUSE

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Prescott Division

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Prescott Division Case :0-cv-00-PGR Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 DENNIS K. BURKE United States Attorney District of Arizona SUE A. KLEIN Assistant U.S. Attorney Arizona State Bar No. Two Renaissance Square 0 North Central

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 55 Filed 02/02/16 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION TERRYL T. MATT, CV 15-28-GF-BMM Plaintiff, vs. ORDER UNITED

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION Case 4:17-cv-00029-BMM Document 210 Filed 08/15/18 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION INDIGENOUS ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK and NORTH COAST RIVER

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the. Ninth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the. Ninth Circuit Case: 08-35954 04/07/2010 Page: 1 of 26 ID: 7293310 DktEntry: 22 No. 08-35954 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit CITY OF VANCOUVER, Plaintiff/Appellant. v. GEORGE SKIBINE, Acting

More information

Case MFW Doc 151 Filed 12/05/14 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case MFW Doc 151 Filed 12/05/14 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE Case 14-50435-MFW Doc 151 Filed 12/05/14 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: WASHINGTON MUTUAL INC., et al., Debtors Chapter 11 Case No. 08-12229 (MFW)

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA Case 4:11-cv-00675-CVE-TLW Document 26 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 08/22/12 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA EASTERN SHAWNEE TRIBE OF ) OKLAHOMA, ) ) Plaintiff,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER Case 1:17-cv-01597-CKK Document 97 Filed 03/23/18 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JANE DOE 1, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 17-cv-1597 (CKK) DONALD J. TRUMP,

More information

Case 1:11-cv REB Document 63 Filed 03/29/13 Page 1 of 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

Case 1:11-cv REB Document 63 Filed 03/29/13 Page 1 of 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO Case 1:11-cv-00586-REB Document 63 Filed 03/29/13 Page 1 of 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO WINTER WILDLANDS ALLIANCE, v. Plaintiff, Case No. 1:11-CV-586-REB MEMORANDUM DECISION

More information

Case 2:13-cv DB Document 2 Filed 12/03/13 Page 1 of 10

Case 2:13-cv DB Document 2 Filed 12/03/13 Page 1 of 10 Case 213-cv-01070-DB Document 2 Filed 12/03/13 Page 1 of 10 J. Preston Stieff (4764) J. Preston Stieff Law Offices 136 East South Temple, Suite 2400 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone (801) 366-6002

More information

Case: 1:17-cv Document #: 20 Filed: 02/28/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:91

Case: 1:17-cv Document #: 20 Filed: 02/28/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:91 Case: 1:17-cv-02787 Document #: 20 Filed: 02/28/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:91 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JEROME RATLIFF, JR., Plaintiff, v.

More information

Case 3:08-cv BHS Document 217 Filed 12/09/13 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

Case 3:08-cv BHS Document 217 Filed 12/09/13 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA Case :0-cv-0-BHS Document Filed /0/ Page of The Honorable Benjamin H. Settle 0 CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS RESERVATION, et al., v. Plaintiffs, THURSTON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, et al., Defendants.

More information

Case 1:18-cv LY Document 32-2 Filed 06/25/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

Case 1:18-cv LY Document 32-2 Filed 06/25/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION Case 1:18-cv-00295-LY Document 32-2 Filed 06/25/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION COMMUNITY FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, LTD., and CONSUMER

More information

Case 1:12-cv BAH Document 28 Filed 01/11/13 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:12-cv BAH Document 28 Filed 01/11/13 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:12-cv-02039-BAH Document 28 Filed 01/11/13 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STAND UP FOR CALIFORNIA!, et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-02039-BAH

More information

Case 2:10-cv GEB-KJM Document 24 Filed 10/08/10 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:10-cv GEB-KJM Document 24 Filed 10/08/10 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Case :-cv-0-geb-kjm Document Filed /0/ Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 CHAD RHOADES and LUIS URBINA, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) :-cv--geb-kjm ) v. ) ORDER GRANTING

More information

Case 3:09-cv WQH-JLB Document 91 Filed 01/18/17 PageID.4818 Page 1 of 9

Case 3:09-cv WQH-JLB Document 91 Filed 01/18/17 PageID.4818 Page 1 of 9 Case 3:09-cv-0330-WQH-JLB Document 9 Filed 0//7 PageID.4 Page of 9 Manuel Corrales, Jr., Esq., SBN 7647 Attorney at Law 740 Bernardo Center Drive, Suite 35 San Diego, California 9 3 Tel: (5) 5 0634 Fax:

More information

RECENT CASES. (codified at 42 U.S.C. 7661a 7661f). 1 See Eric Biber, Two Sides of the Same Coin: Judicial Review of Administrative Agency Action

RECENT CASES. (codified at 42 U.S.C. 7661a 7661f). 1 See Eric Biber, Two Sides of the Same Coin: Judicial Review of Administrative Agency Action 982 RECENT CASES FEDERAL STATUTES CLEAN AIR ACT D.C. CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT EPA CANNOT PREVENT STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES FROM SUPPLEMENTING INADEQUATE EMISSIONS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS IN THE ABSENCE OF

More information

Case 2:15-cv TLN-KJN Document 31-1 Filed 03/01/16 Page 1 of 9

Case 2:15-cv TLN-KJN Document 31-1 Filed 03/01/16 Page 1 of 9 Case :-cv-0-tln-kjn Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 Linda S. Mitlyng, Esquire CA Bar No. 0 P.O. Box Eureka, California 0 0-0 mitlyng@sbcglobal.net Attorney for defendants Richard Baland & Robert Davis

More information

Case 2:17-cv MSG Document 7 Filed 10/16/17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:17-cv MSG Document 7 Filed 10/16/17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Case 2:17-cv-01903-MSG Document 7 Filed 10/16/17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MARCIA WOODS, et al. : : CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, : : v. : : NO.

More information

Case: , 02/08/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 82-1, Page 1 of cv. United States Court of Appeals. for the.

Case: , 02/08/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 82-1, Page 1 of cv. United States Court of Appeals. for the. Case: 15-15754, 02/08/2018, ID: 10756751, DktEntry: 82-1, Page 1 of 20 15-15754-cv United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit HAVASUPAI TRIBE, Plaintiff-Appellant, GRAND CANYON TRUST; CENTER

More information

Case 2:09-cv HA Document 112 Filed 04/24/12 Page 1 of 15 Page ID#: 1128 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Case 2:09-cv HA Document 112 Filed 04/24/12 Page 1 of 15 Page ID#: 1128 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON Case 2:09-cv-00152-HA Document 112 Filed 04/24/12 Page 1 of 15 Page ID#: 1128 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PENDLETON DIVISION LOREN STOUT and PIPER STOUT, Plaintiffs, Case No.

More information

UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE

UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Sherwood et al v. Tennessee Valley Authority (TV1) Doc. 181 UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE DONNA W. SHERWOOD, et al., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 3:12-CV-156 ) (VARLAN/GUYTON)

More information

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

United States District Court For the Northern District of California Case:0-cv-0-CRB Document Filed0//0 Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 JULEUS CHAPMAN, et al., v. Plaintiffs, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al.,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION : : : : : : : : : : ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION : : : : : : : : : : ORDER Case 217-cv-00282-RWS Document 40 Filed 09/26/18 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION VASHAUN JONES, Plaintiff, v. LANIER FEDERAL CREDIT

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PAUL REIN, Plaintiff, v. LEON AINER, et al., Defendants. Case No. -cv-0-jd ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

More information

Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 144 Filed: 09/29/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1172

Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 144 Filed: 09/29/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1172 Case: 1:11-cv-05452 Document #: 144 Filed: 09/29/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1172 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JOSE JIMENEZ MORENO and MARIA )

More information

Case 2:17-cv SU Document 52 Filed 02/02/18 Page 1 of 11

Case 2:17-cv SU Document 52 Filed 02/02/18 Page 1 of 11 Case 2:17-cv-01004-SU Document 52 Filed 02/02/18 Page 1 of 11 Oliver J. H. Stiefel, OSB # 135436 Tel: (503) 227-2212 oliver@crag.org Christopher G. Winter, OSB # 984355 Tel: (503) 525-2725 chris@crag.org

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE CIC SERVICES, LLC, and RYAN, LLC, v. Plaintiffs, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

More information

Case 2:14-cv TLN-CKD Document 19 Filed 03/05/15 Page 1 of 11

Case 2:14-cv TLN-CKD Document 19 Filed 03/05/15 Page 1 of 11 Case :-cv-0-tln-ckd Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 DIANE F. BOYER-VINE (SBN: Legislative Counsel ROBERT A. PRATT (SBN: 0 Principal Deputy Legislative Counsel CARA L. JENKINS (SBN: Deputy Legislative Counsel

More information

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:18-cv-02837 Document 1 Filed 12/04/18 Page 1 of 14 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, 1101 15 th Street NW, 11 th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005, and

More information

Case4:12-cv PJH Document82-1 Filed02/20/14 Page1 of 11

Case4:12-cv PJH Document82-1 Filed02/20/14 Page1 of 11 Case:-cv-0-PJH Document- Filed0// Page of 0 GEORGE A. KIMBRELL (Pro Hac Vice PAIGE M. TOMASELLI State Bar No. RACHEL A. ZUBATY State Bar No. 0 Center for Food Safety 0 Sacramento St., nd Floor San Francisco,

More information

Case 2:16-cv TLN-AC Document 28 Filed 03/04/19 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 2:16-cv TLN-AC Document 28 Filed 03/04/19 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-cv-0-tln-ac Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 CAL-PAC RANCHO CORDOVA, LLC, dba PARKWEST CORDOVA CASINO; CAPITOL CASINO, INC.; LODI CARDROOM,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MEMORANDUM OPINION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MEMORANDUM OPINION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ADVANCE AMERICA, CASH ADVANCE CENTERS, INC., et al. Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 14-953 GK) FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, et al. Defendants.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION BARBARA GRUTTER, vs. Plaintiff, LEE BOLLINGER, et al., Civil Action No. 97-CV-75928-DT HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN Defendants. and

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA PEBBLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and ALASKA PENINSULA CORPORATION, Plaintiffs, and STATE OF ALASKA, Intervenor-Plaintiff, vs. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL

More information

Case 3:12-cv H-BLM Document 5-1 Filed 05/11/12 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:12-cv H-BLM Document 5-1 Filed 05/11/12 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Case :-cv-00-h-blm Document - Filed 0// Page of 0 BRADLEY S. PHILLIPS (State Bar No. 0) JOHN M. RAPPAPORT (State Bar No. ) MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP South Grand Avenue, th Floor Los Angeles, CA 00-0 Telephone:

More information

Case 2:17-cv WB Document 85 Filed 12/10/18 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:17-cv WB Document 85 Filed 12/10/18 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Case 2:17-cv-04540-WB Document 85 Filed 12/10/18 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in

More information

Plaintiffs Allina Heal th Services, et al. ("Plaintiffs"), bring this action against Sylvia M. Burwell, in her official

Plaintiffs Allina Heal th Services, et al. (Plaintiffs), bring this action against Sylvia M. Burwell, in her official ALLINA HEALTH SERVICES et al v. BURWELL Doc. 23 @^M セ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ALLINA HEALTH SERVICES, ) et al., ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) SYLVIA M. BURWELL, Secretary )

More information

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 14-72794, 04/28/2017, ID: 10415009, DktEntry: 58, Page 1 of 20 No. 14-72794 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN RE PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK NORTH AMERICA, and NATURAL RESOURCES

More information

Case 2:09-cv KJM-CKD Document 35 Filed 09/26/11 Page 1 of 13

Case 2:09-cv KJM-CKD Document 35 Filed 09/26/11 Page 1 of 13 Case :0-cv-0-KJM-CKD Document Filed 0// Page of KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California PETER A. KRAUSE Supervising Deputy Attorney General ANTHONY R. HAKL, State Bar No. Deputy Attorney General

More information

Case: 3:17-cv jdp Document #: 67 Filed: 10/25/17 Page 1 of 12

Case: 3:17-cv jdp Document #: 67 Filed: 10/25/17 Page 1 of 12 Case: 3:17-cv-00249-jdp Document #: 67 Filed: 10/25/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN THE STOCKBRIDGE-MUNSEE COMMUNITY, v. Plaintiff, OPINION & ORDER

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-cv-0-who Document Filed /0/ Page of BOUTIN JONES INC. Daniel S. Stouder, SBN dstouder@boutinjones.com Amy L. O Neill, SBN aoneill@boutinjones.com Capitol Mall, Suite 00 Sacramento, CA -0 Telephone:

More information