IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. The Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association ( GCPBA ) seeks to intervene in
|
|
- Leslie Waters
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Matew K. Bishop (New Mexico Bar # 17806) pro hac vice Western Environmental Law Center P.O. Box 1507 Taos, New Mexico tel: (505) fax: (505) bishop@westernlaw.org Julia A. Olson (California Bar # ) pro hac vice Wild Ear Advocates 2985 Adams Street Eugene, Oregon tel: (541) fax: (541) jaoear@aol.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA River Runners for Wilderness, et al., ) ) No. CV PCT-DGC Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) Joseph F. Alston, et al., ) ) Federal-Defendants. ) ) PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO GRAND CANYON PRIVATE BOATERS ASSOCIATION S MOTION TO INTERVENE The Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association ( GCPBA ) seeks to intervene in is case as a matter of right pursuant to Rule 24 (a) of e Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and, in e alternative, wi permission from e Court under Rule 24 (b) of e Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As outlined below, e GCPBA is not entitled to intervene because it lacks a significantly protectable interest at would entitle it to intervene as of right. Furer, e GCPBA has failed to prove at it is entitled to intervene permissively. However, as wi e Grand Canyon River Outfitters Association s ( GCROA s ) motion, e Plaintiffs, River Runners for Wilderness et al., do not oppose e participation 1
2 of e GCPBA in e remedy phase of e litigation. See e.g., Forest Conservation Council v. U.S. Forest Service, 66 F.3d 1489, 1499 (9 Cir. 1995) (intervention appropriate in remedy phase of proceedings). Accordingly, should e Court find at Federal-Defendants violated federal law, e Court could allow e GCPBA and e GCROA to participate in is case for e purposes of deciding e propriety or scope of injunctive relief. STANDARD OF REVIEW The burden is on e applicant for intervention to demonstrate at all conditions for intervention are satisfied. Petrol Stops Norwest v. Continental Oil Co., 647 F.2d 1005, 1010 n.5 (9 Cir. 1980). While e Court construes e rules for intervention broadly in favor of e applicant, all conditions must be satisfied before intervention is granted. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 995 F.2d 1478, 1481 (9 Cir. 1993). Moreover, if e Court decides to allow intervention as of right or permissively, it may limit an intervenor s participation subject to appropriate conditions or restrictions responsive among oer ings to e requirements of e efficient conduct of e proceedings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 (a) (advisory committee note to 1966 amendments); see also United States v. Oregon, 913 F.2d 576, 588 (9 Cir. 1990). STATUS OF THE CASE Plaintiffs filed is case on March 28, 2006 challenging Federal-Defendants s 2005 Colorado River Management Plan ( CRMP ) and Final Environmental Impact Statement ( FEIS ) for e Colorado River corridor in e Grand Canyon National Park and Federal-Defendants February 17, 2006 Record of Decision ( ROD ) adopting e CRMP. See Docket No. 1. Plaintiffs allege at Federal-Defendants new CRMP auorizes certain types, levels, and allocations of use at violate e National Park 2
3 Service s statutory mandates, regulations, policies, and management plans. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment at Federal-Defendants new CRMP violates e National Park Service Organic Act ( Organic Act ), e Grand Canyon Protection Act, e National Park Service Concessions Management Improvement Act ( CMIA ), National Park Service regulations, policies, and management plans, and e National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA ). Plaintiffs also seek relief related exclusively to e Federal-Defendants compliance wi federal law. Plaintiffs request at e Court issue an injunction ordering Federal-Defendants to prepare a new CRMP and FEIS at remedies e violations of law articulated in e complaint. On June 8, 2006 Federal-Defendants filed eir answer. See Docket No. 15. On July 4, 2006 e Parties prepared and filed a Joint Case Management Report. See Docket No. 18. In e Joint Case Management Report e Parties agreed to specific dates for e filing of e Administrative Record, resolving disputes concerning e contents of e Administrative Record, and a schedule for briefing motions for summary judgment. Thereafter, on July 7, 2006, e first applicant intervenor e GCROA filed its motion to intervene as of right and permissibly. On July 12, 2006 a Case Management Conference was held in is case pursuant to Rule 16 (b) of e Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Following e Conference, on July 18, 2006, e Court issued a Case Management Order. The Case Management Order: (1) establishes deadlines for e filing of e Administrative Record and summary judgment briefing; and (2) grants e Parties request to bifurcate e merit and remedy phases of e litigation. On July 24, 2006 e GCPBA s filed its motion to intervene as of right and permissably. 3
4 ARGUMENT A. THE GCPBA DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA TO OBTAIN INTERVENTION AS OF RIGHT In e Nin Circuit, intervention as of right is only granted if: (1) e application for intervention is timely; (2) e applicant has a significantly protectable interest relating to e property or transaction at is e subject of e action; (3) e applicant is so situated at disposition of e action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede its ability to protect at interest; and (4) e applicant s interest is inadequately represented by e existing parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 (a); see also Norwest Forest Resource Council v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 836 (9 Cir. 1996) (same). If an applicant to intervene fails to satisfy any one of e four requirements for intervention, e Court need not address e remaining requirements. Portland Audubon Soc y v. Hodel, 866 F.2d 302, 310 (9 Cir. 1989), cert. denied 492 U.S. 911 (1989). Here, e GCPBA is not entitled to intervention as of right because: (1) ey do not have a significantly protectable interest in e case; and (2) eir interests are adequately represented by Federal-Defendants. 1. The GCPBA Does Not Have A Significantly Protectable Interest In This Case To intervene as of right, e GCPBA must prove it has a significantly protectable interest in is case and at ere is a relationship between e legally protected interest and e claims at issue. Sierra Club, 995 F. 2d at The GCPBA does not meet ese conditions. As noted, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment at Federal-Defendants have violated solely federal laws, regulations, and policies: NEPA, Organic Act, Grand Canyon Protection Act, CMIA, and e various implementing regulations, policies, and 4
5 management plans. Based upon its request for a declaratory judgment, Plaintiffs seek to compel Federal-Defendants to perform eir duties required by ese federal laws. Only Federal-Defendants e National Park Service, et al. can be held to have violated ese laws, regulations, policies and plans in e respects alleged by Plaintiffs and likewise only Federal-Defendants can be ordered to perform e duties at Plaintiffs request as relief. In is circumstance, it is well established in e Nin Circuit at an entity oer an a defendant federal agency lacks a significantly protectable interest and cannot intervene as of right to participate in e merits phase of a lawsuit. See Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1108 (9 Cir. 2002) (holding at e district court erred in allowing conservation groups to intervene as of right in a NEPA case); Wetlands Action Network v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 222 F.3d 1105, (9 Cir. 2000) (upholding district court s denial of a permittee s application to intervene on a NEPA claim); Churchill County v. Babbitt, 150 F.3d 1072, (9 Cir. 1998) (upholding district court s denial of a public utility s application to intervene in a NEPA case); Forest Conservation Council, 66 F. 3d at (intervention only allowed in portion of proceedings addressing injunctive relief); Portland Audubon Society, 866 F.2d at 309 (timber industry denied intervention in NEPA case). As explained by e Nin Circuit, [t]he rationale for our rule is at, because NEPA requires action only by e government, only e government can be liable under NEPA. A private party cannot comply wi NEPA, and, erefore, a private party cannot be a defendant in a NEPA compliance action. Churchill County, 150 F.3d at NEPA does not regulate e conduct of private parties or state or local governments. It regulates e federal government... It is for at reason at in a lawsuit to compel compliance wi NEPA, no one but e federal government can be a defendant. Sierra Club, 995 F.2d at 1485 (9 Cir. 1993) (emphasis added). 5
6 The rule does not change for claims brought under e Organic Act, CMIA, Grand Canyon Protection Act, or e National Park Service s implementing regulations, policies, or management plans. See e.g., Forest Conservation Council, 66 F.3d at 1493 n.11 (9 Cir. 1995) (extending rule beyond NEPA to National Forest Management Act (NFMA) claims based upon e same reasoning); High Sierra Hikers Assn. v. Powell, CV EDL, slip order pp. 5 & 6 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2000) (extending rule to Wilderness Act claims); Riverhawks v. Zepeda, CV AA, slip opinion and order pp. 7-8 (D. Or. Aug. 24, 2001) (extending rule to Wild and Scenic Rivers Act claims); and Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Service, CV HU, slip order pp. 9 & 13 (D. Or. Dec. 18, 2000) (extending rule to Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Act claims). Again, e rationale is at ese federal laws only require action by e federal government. As such, no one but e federal government can be a defendant. Sierra Club, 995 F. 2d at Here, e GCPBA fails to demonstrate at ey have a significantly protectable interest in is case. As explained above, e GCPBA cannot comply wi e federal laws and regulations at issue in is litigation. The GCPBA cannot be ordered to comply wi NEPA, e Organic Act, Grand Canyon Protection Act, CMIA, or e NPS s own regulations, policies, or management plans. Likewise, e GCPBA cannot be held liable under such laws and regulations. On its face, erefore, e GCPBA does not have a significantly protectable interest in is case. See Sierra Club, 995 F. 2d at 1485; Forest Conservation Council, 66 F. 3d at Moreover, e GCPBA has not alleged, nor could it allege, any harm to a tangible, legally protectable, or concrete interest. The only interest alleged by e GCPBA is in e NPS s allocation of boating permits and e remote chance at such interests could be impaired if e case is remanded to e agency to reconsider its decision to increase e allocation to private boaters. GCPBA s Memo. at 5. In oer words, e GCPBA s 6
7 alleged interest and harm stems only from e NPS s reconsideration of its permit allocation system and e remote chance at, in so doing, it will decide to decrease e permit allocations to private boaters. Such an attenuated, generalized reat to GCPBA s 1 alleged interest does not suffice. See e.g., Portland Audubon Society, 866 F. 2d at 304. In eir motion, e GCPBA counters at it has a significantly protectable interest in is case because it filed e litigation at led to e NPS s decision under challenge here and should be allowed to participate to support e outcome of e process it sponsored or oerwise precipitated. GCPBA Memo. at 4 (emphasis added). This, however, is inaccurate. While e GCPBA did file e original lawsuit at led to e preparation of e new Colorado River Management Plan ( CRMP ) at issue in is case, e GCPBA is not supporting e outcome of e process it sponsored. In fact, just e opposite is true: e board of e GCPBA is actually abandoning e outcome of e process it originally sponsored. In e original lawsuit, Grand Canyon Private Boaters Ass n v. Arnberger, No CV PCT-PGR (D. Ariz. October 2, 2000), e GCPBA challenged: (1) e NPS s auorization of motorboats and helicopters in e Colorado River corridor in e Grand Canyon as violating e Agency s duty to manage for wilderness character; (2) e NPS s 1 The GCPBA does not have a contract wi e NPS at may be impacted by e litigation. However, even if ey did, e outcome would be e same. As articulated in Plaintiffs response to e GCROA s motion to intervene, e Nin Circuit has squarely held at e rule barring participation of private parties on e merits of claims against federal agencies extends equally to a private parties at have contracts or permits wi a federal agency. See e.g., Forest Conservation Council, 66 F. 3d at 1495 (party at holds contract wi federal government only allowed to intervene in e remedy phase of e lawsuit); Wetlands Action Network, 222 F.3d at 1114 (upholding denial of permittee s application to intervene in NEPA case); Forest Guardians v. Bureau of Land Management, 188 F.R.D. 389, 396 (D. N.M. 1999) (denying Forest Service livestock permittees application to intervene). 7
8 failure to comply wi NEPA; and (3) e NPS s inequitable permit allocation system. See Grand Canyon Private Boaters Ass n v. Arnberger, No CV PCT-PGR (D. Ariz. October 2, 2000), Docket No. 2 (First Amended Complaint). Specifically, e GCPBA alleged at e NPS has auorized and/or permitted commercial activities, including motorized watercraft and helicopter use, at [Grand Canyon National Park]...at levels, frequencies, and numbers at have caused, and continue to cause, substantial adverse impacts to e wilderness qualities of lands proposed by NPS for wilderness designation. Accordingly, [e NPS s] actions in is regard are arbitrary and capricious. Id. at 65. The GCPBA also alleged at e NPS failed to revise e allocation of river use permits between commercial concessionaires and private rafters despite eir awareness of substantial data at amply justifies such an equitable re-allocation. Id. at 125. Now, e GCPBA is abandoning ese earlier claims abandoning e issues and concerns expressed in e original lawsuit. In fact, on January 25, 2005 e GCPBA signed a Memorandum of Agreement ( MOA ) wi e GCROA. In e January 25, 2005 MOA, e two organizations agree to: (1) resolve all major disagreements among and between emselves concerning e NPS s management of e Colorado River in e Grand Canyon (i.e., e subject matter of is case); (2) support e NPS s proposal to increase recreational use of e Colorado River; (3) not oppose or oerwise interfere wi e continued auorization by e NPS of motorized watercraft to provide recreational river trips... and will not seek to reduce e level of such use; (4) not advocate for e inclusion of e Colorado River in e National Wilderness Preservation System; and (5) not challenge, obstruct, delay, or oerwise interfere wi e NPS efforts to renew 2 concessionaire contracts. See MOA at 4, 5, and 6. 2 A complete copy of e MOA is available online at: (last visited on July 31, 2006). 8
9 In e MOA, e GCPBA even agrees to use best efforts to discourage eir [own] members from engaging in any activity at would be inconsistent wi e MOA. See id. at 6. Wiout question, by signing is MOA, e GCPBA abandoned its original wilderness, NEPA, and equitable permit allocation claims. The GCPBA effectively signed away its right to renew e claims of its original lawsuit and its protectable interest in is case. As such, it is bo disingenuous and inaccurate for e GCPBA now to allege at ey have a protectable interest in supporting e outcome of a process at it sponsored. While e GCPBA may have filed e original lawsuit to get e CRMP process going, ey certainly are not advocates for, or sponsoring, e original issues and claims presented in at case to enforce federal law and, as such, do not have a significantly protectable interest in is case. In is respect, e GCPBA s purported interests in is case are very different, and distinguishable, from e interests of e applicant interventors in e Nin Circuit s Washington State Building and Construction Trade Council v. Spellman, 684 F.2d 627, 629 (9 Cir. 1982), decision and e Ten Circuit s holding in Coalition of Ariz/New Mexico Counties for Stable Economic Grow v. Dept. of Interior, 100 F.3d 837, 839 (10 Cir. 1996). In ese two cases relied upon by e GCPBA, e applicant intervenors position (bo before and during litigation) remained consistent. The public interest group in e Washington State Building case was seeking to intervene to defend a statute at it had previously sponsored as an initiative measure. 684 F. 2d at 629. Likewise, in e Coalition of Ariz/New Mexico Counties case, Dr. Robin Silver an advocate for e Mexican spotted owl was seeking to intervene to defend federal protections for e species. 100 F. 3d at 839. Here, e situation is very different. The GCPBA has flip-flopped on e issues and is seeking to intervene to defend e NPS s CRMP seeking to defend a CRMP at 9
10 auorizes certain types and levels of use at e GCPBA specifically challenged in its original lawsuit. In fact, if e GCPBA was truly interested in intervening to advocate for e original issues in e earlier lawsuit just as e applicant intervenors in e Washington State Building and Coalition of Ariz/New Mexico Counties cases it would 3 seek to intervene on e side of e Plaintiffs in is case. Instead, GCPBA, in accordance wi its MOA wi GCROA, seeks to intervene on e side of NPS and advocate e same position at GCROA will advocate. 3. The GCPBA Failed To Demonstrate That Federal-Defendants Representation Is Inadequate The Nin Circuit considers ree factors in determining e adequacy of representation: (1) wheer e interest of a present party is such at it will undoubtedly 3 In is case Plaintiffs are seeking protection for e Grand Canyon s wilderness character, NEPA compliance, and a fair and equitable permit allocation system at would benefit members of e GCPBA, who wish to take non-commercial trips down e Colorado River. See Plaintiffs Complaint ( Complaint ) at Count IV. Plaintiffs are alleging at e existing permit allocation system is inequitable because it favors access to private commercial users who can afford to pay for guided trips at e expense of noncommercial users. Under e existing permit allocation system, a member of e public gains access to travel down e Colorado River by eier: (1) applying for a non-commercial permit rough e lottery system; or (2) paying a commercial concessionaire, which already has guaranteed allocated use of e river, to take people on a private trip down e river. As such, members of e public who have e financial means and inclination to gain river access by paying for a private commercial trip are assured a trip down e Colorado River while members of e public who cannot afford to pay a commercial outfitter and/or do not which to take a commercial trip, have no guarantee ey will be able to take a trip down e Colorado River. In is case, Plaintiffs allege at e NPS s concessionaire friendly permit allocation system is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance wi e Organic Act. Complaint at 166. If successful is claim will actually benefit noncommercial users such as e members of e GCPBA. 10
11 make all of a proposed intervenor s arguments; (2) wheer e present party is capable and willing to make such arguments; and (3) wheer a proposed intervenor would offer any necessary elements to e proceeding at oer parties would neglect. Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9 Cir. 2003) (citing California v. Tahoe Reg l Planning Agency, 792 F.2d 775, 778 (9 Cir. 1986)). In e Nin Circuit, e applicant intervenor bears e burden of demonstrating at e existing parties may not adequately represent its interests. Souwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 822 (9 Cir. 2001). Moreover, when an applicant for intervention and an existing party have e same ultimate objective, a presumption of adequacy of representation arises.... [and] a compelling showing should be required to demonstrate inadequate representation. Arakaki, 324 F.3d at 1086 (citations omitted). This presumption of adequacy of representation is particularly applicable in cases such as is where e government is acting on behalf of a constituency at it represents. California v. United States, 450 F. 3d 436, 443 (9 Cir. 2006). In such cases, ere is an assumption of adequacy when e government and e applicant are on e same side... [and] [i]n e absence of a very compelling showing to e contrary, it will be presumed at a [government] adequately represents its citizens when e applicant shares e same interest. Arakaki, 324 F.3d at 1086 (quoting 7C Wright, Miller & Kane, 1909, at 332). Here, e GCPBA and Federal-Defendants share e same interest in upholding e validity of e National Park Service s Colorado River Management Plan (CRMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for e Colorado River corridor in e Grand Canyon. Furer, e GCPBA has provided no evidence to rebut e presumption at e federal government e Department of Justice is adequately representing eir interests. And certainly, e GCPBA has failed to make a very compelling showing to e contrary. 7C Wright, Miller & Kane, 1909, at
12 B. THE GCPBA SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE PERMISSIVELY To intervene permissively, e GCPBA must establish at its claims or defenses have a question of law or fact in common wi e main action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 (b); see also Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, 313 F.3d at If e GCPBA fails to establish is commonality of law and fact en its motion must be denied. Id. at Moreover, even if e GCPBA does assert a common question of law or fact, is Court retains broad discretion wheer to allow it to intervene permissively. McDonald v. Means, 309 F.3d 530, 541 (9 Cir. 2002). In exercising is broad discretion, e Court must consider wheer [permissive] intervention will unduly delay or prejudice e adjudication of e rights of e original parties. Kootenai Tribe, 313 F.3d at 1111 n.10. Here, e Court should exercise its broad discretion and: (1) limit e GCPBA s participation to e remedy phase of e litigation; (2) limit e GCPBA s participation to e NPS s allocation of permits issue e single issue of interest to e GCPBA; and (3) require e GCPBA to consolidate any remedy briefing wi e GCROA, wi whom it has an MOA to advocate e same position wi respect to e CRMP. This approach makes sense because, as mentioned earlier, e existing Parties can adequately and fully present arguments concerning wheer Federal-Defendants have violated federal law and, as such, it is more appropriate to limit e GCPBA s participation to e remedy phase of e case. As explained by e Nin Circuit, allowing ird parties like e GCPBA to participate in e remedy phase of e case is proper because [i]njunctive relief is an equitable remedy, requiring e court to engage in e traditional balance of harms analysis, even in e context of environmental litigation. Forest Conservation Council, 66 F. 3d at 1496 (citing Thomas v. Peterson, 753 F. 2d 754, 764 (9 Cir. 1985)). In is case, should e Court find at Federal-Defendants violated federal law, 12
13 any future injunction sought by Plaintiffs will not automatically issue. Instead, a separate hearing and/or new round of briefing on e appropriate remedy will follow. At e remedy stage, e GCPBA may present evidence to e court at unusual circumstances weigh against e injunction sought, and [ ] present evidence to assist e court in fashioning e appropriate scope of whatever injunctive relief is granted. Id. Notably, e only issue of interest to e GCPBA at prompted e organization to filed its motion is e NPS s allocation of permits. In e GCPBA s own words, e GCPBA s interest is in e allocation of boating permits... The plaintiffs claims could impair GCPBA s interests by causing a remand to e agency to reconsider its decision to increase allocation to private boaters. GCPBA s Memo at 5. Limiting e GCPBA s participation to is issue during e remedy phase of e litigation is erefore just and proper. Finally, as mentioned earlier, given at e two applicant intervenors - e GCROA and GCPBA have signed a Memorandum of Agreement ( MOA ) concerning e issues presented in is case, e Court should require e two organizations to consolidate any briefing ey may submit at e remedy phase. The two organizations have agreed to take e same, identical stance on e issues presented in e case and, as such, should be required to filed one, identical consolidated brief on e issues. CONCLUSION For e foregoing reasons, e GCPBA does not meet its burden of establishing a right to intervene as of right or permissively on e merits in is case. Plaintiffs respectfully recommend, however, at is Court allow e GCPBA to participate in is case only as to e propriety or scope of injunctive relief and wi e limitations (one issue, consolidated briefing) discussed above. Respectfully submitted is 7 day of August,
14 /s/ Matew K. Bishop Matew K. Bishop (New Mexico Bar # 17806) pro hac vice Western Environmental Law Center P.O. Box 1507 Taos, New Mexico tel: (505) fax: (505) bishop@westernlaw.org /s/ Julia A. Olson Julia A. Olson (California Bar # ) pro hac vice Wild Ear Advocates 2985 Adams Street Eugene, Oregon tel: (541) fax: (541) jaoear@aol.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify at on is 7 day of August, I electronically transmitted a complete copy of Plaintiffs Response to Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association s Motion to Intervene to e following CM/ECF registrants: Andrew Smi U.S. Department of Justice andrew.smi@usdoj.gov Sue A. Klein U.S. Attorney s Office sue.klein@usdoj.gov Sam Kalen VAN NESS FELDMAN, P.C. smk@vnf.com Jonaon D. Simon jxs@vnf.com I hereby certify at on is 7 day of August, I ed and mailed, via first class mail, postage pre-paid, a complete copy of Plaintiffs Response to Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association s Motion to Intervene to e following non CM/ECF registrants: 14
15 Lori Potter Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP 1675 Broadway, Suite 2300 Denver, CO /s/ Matew K. Bishop Matew K. Bishop 15
Case 4:08-cv CW Document 230 Filed 11/18/08 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :0-cv-0-CW Document 0 Filed //0 Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY; NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL; and GREENPEACE,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Prescott Division
Case :0-cv-00-PGR Document Filed 0//0 Page of 0 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 informationCase 1:08-cv SJM Document 26 Filed 04/07/09 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 1:08-cv-00323-SJM Document 26 Filed 04/07/09 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA FOREST SERVICE EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS; ALLEGHENY DEFENSE
More informationIN 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 informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:14-cv-09281-PSG-SH Document 34 Filed 04/02/15 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:422 Present: The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge Wendy Hernandez Deputy Clerk Attorneys Present for
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EASTERN DIVISION
Case :-cv-00-jgb-sp Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 ROBERT G. DREHER Acting Assistant Attorney General Environment and Natural Resources Division United States Department of Justice F. PATRICK
More informationCase 4:18-cv DMR Document 5 Filed 09/20/18 Page 1 of 21
Case :-cv-0-dmr Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 Emil A. Macasinag (State Bar No. ) emacasinag@wshblaw.com 00 Wilshire Boulevard, th Floor Los Angeles, California 00-0 Phone: 0--00 Fax: 0--0 [ADDITIONAL
More informationSnell & Wilmer IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case :-cv-0-ckj Document Filed // Page of One Arizona Center, 00 E. Van Buren, Suite 00 Phoenix, Arizona 00-0..000 0 Brett W. Johnson (# ) Eric H. Spencer (# 00) SNELL & WILMER One Arizona Center 00 E.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Edward Peruta, et al,, Case No
Case: 10-56971, 04/22/2015, ID: 9504505, DktEntry: 238-1, Page 1 of 21 (1 of 36) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Edward Peruta, et al,, Case No. 10-56971 Plaintiffs-Appellants,
More informationUNITED 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 informationUnited States District Court
0 0 JOHN DOE, et al., v. KAMALA HARRIS, et al., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiffs, Defendants. NO. C- TEH ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE This case
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA MEMORADUM IN SUPPORT OF STATE OF ALASKA S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE
DANIEL S. SULLIVAN, Attorney General STEVE DEVRIES, Assistant Attorney General Alaska Department of Law 1031 W. 4 th Avenue, Suite 200 Anchorage, AK 99501 (907) 269-5255 (phone) (907) 279-8644 (facsimile)
More information8:13-cv JFB-TDT Doc # 51 Filed: 10/08/13 Page 1 of 14 - Page ID # 1162 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
8:13-cv-00215-JFB-TDT Doc # 51 Filed: 10/08/13 Page 1 of 14 - Page ID # 1162 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA ACTIVISION TV, INC., Plaintiff, v. PINNACLE BANCORP, INC.,
More informationCase 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 informationAttorneys for Plaintiff Center for Biological Diversity UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA PRESCOTT DIVISION
Case 3:09-cv-08011-PGR Document 78 Filed 05/12/10 Page 1 of 8 Adam Keats (CA Bar No. 191157) (pro hac vice) John Buse (CA Bar No. 163156) (pro hac vice) CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 351 California Street,
More informationSnell & Wilmer IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case :-cv-00-dlr Document Filed 0/0/ Page of One Arizona Center, 00 E. Van Buren, Suite 00 0..000 0 0 Brett W. Johnson (#0) Sara J. Agne (#00) Joy L. Isaacs (#00) SNELL & WILMER One Arizona Center 00 E.
More informationCase3:15-cv JCS Document21 Filed05/06/15 Page1 of 19
Case:-cv-00-JCS Document Filed0/0/ Page of 0 Kirsten L. Nathanson (DC Bar #)* Thomas Lundquist (DC Bar # )* Sherrie A. Armstrong (DC Bar #00)* 00 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 000 T: (0) -00 F:(0)
More informationCase 1:06-cv AWI-DLB Document 32 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :0-cv-0-AWI-DLB Document Filed 0//00 Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF INYO, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ) DIRK
More informationUNITED 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 informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
1 1 1 1 DANIEL G. KNAUSS United States Attorney District of Arizona SUE A. KLEIN Assistant U.S. Attorney (Az. Bar #1) Two Renaissance Square 0 North Central Avenue Suite 00 Phoenix, Arizona 00 (0) 1-00
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 08-15112 07/21/2009 Page: 1 of 40 DktEntry: 6998050 FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RIVER RUNNERS FOR WILDERNESS; ROCK THE EARTH; WILDERNESS WATCH; LIVING RIVERS,
More informationCase 1:13-cv MCA-RHS Document 50 Filed 07/19/13 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:13-cv-00639-MCA-RHS Document 50 Filed 07/19/13 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO FRONT RANGE EQUINE RESCUE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civ. No. 1:13-cv-00639-MCA-RHS
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:18-cv-02354-WYD Document 11 Filed 11/13/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 18 Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-02354-WYD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO TRAILS PRESERVATION ALLIANCE,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. On May 22, 2014, Plaintiff Kristine Barnes recorded a notice of lis pendens on
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 KRISTINE BARNES, Plaintiff, v. RICK MORTELL, et al., Defendants. Case No. :-cv-0-kaw ORDER GRANTING WELLS FARGO'S MOTION TO INTERVENE AND
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case :-cv-00-dlr Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 Roopali H. Desai (0 Andrew S. Gordon (000 D. Andrew Gaona (0 COPPERSMITH BROCKELMAN PLC 00 North Central Avenue, Suite 00 Phoenix, Arizona 00 T: (0 - rdesai@cblawyers.com
More informationCase 3:12-cv SI Document 32 Filed 02/19/13 Page 1 of 21 Page ID#: 638 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Case 3:12-cv-02265-SI Document 32 Filed 02/19/13 Page 1 of 21 Page ID#: 638 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 3:12-cv-02265-SI
More informationCase 5:16-cv EJD Document 22 Filed 12/13/16 Page 1 of 8
Case :-cv-00-ejd Document Filed // Page of Brian Selden SBN Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, California 0 Telephone: +.0.. Facsimile: +.0..00 Chad Readler Pro hac application pending John H. McConnell Boulevard,
More informationCase 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 informationCase 3:13-cv DGC Document 120 Filed 05/06/14 Page 1 of 12
Case 3:13-cv-08045-DGC Document 120 Filed 05/06/14 Page 1 of 12 Richard W. Hughes (NM Bar No. 1230) Rostein, Donatelli, Hughes, Dahlstrom, Schoenburg & Bienvenu LLP 1215 Paseo De Peralta Santa Fe, New
More informationCase3:09-cv JSW Document142 Filed09/22/11 Page1 of 7
Case:0-cv-00-JSW Document Filed0// Page of 0 MELINDA HAAG (SBN United States Attorney JOANN M. SWANSON (SBN Chief, Civil Division JONATHAN U. LEE (SBN NEIL T. TSENG (SBN Assistant United States Attorneys
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION MISSOURI COALITION FOR THE ) ENVIRONMENT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case Number: 03-4217-CV-C-NKL ) MICHAEL O. LEAVITT, Administrator
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * *
Case :-cv-00-rcj -VPC Document Filed 0// Page of DANIEL G. BOGDEN United States Attorney HOLLY A. VANCE Assistant United States Attorney 00 West Liberty Street, Suite 00 Reno, Nevada 0 Tel: ( - Fax: (
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. SIERRA CLUB; and VIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE,
USCA4 Appeal: 18-2095 Doc: 50 Filed: 01/16/2019 Pg: 1 of 8 No. 18-2095 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT SIERRA CLUB; and VIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE, v. Petitioners, UNITED
More informationCase 3:15-cv BLW Document 7 Filed 06/24/15 Page 1 of 5
Case 3:15-cv-00169-BLW Document 7 Filed 06/24/15 Page 1 of 5 Laurence ( Laird ) J. Lucas (ISB# 4733) Director of Litigation Advocates for the West P.O. Box 1612 Boise, ID 83701 208-342-7024 ext. 209 llucas@advocateswest.org
More informationCase: 3:14-cv slc Document #: 77 Filed: 04/27/15 Page 1 of 8
Case: 3:14-cv-00734-slc Document #: 77 Filed: 04/27/15 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN WOODMAN S FOOD MARKET, INC., v. Plaintiff, THE CLOROX COMPANY
More informationCase: , 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 informationCase 2:16-cv SWS Document 63 Filed 12/15/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITES STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF WYOMING
Case 2:16-cv-00285-SWS Document 63 Filed 12/15/16 Page 1 of 11 REED ZARS Wyo. Bar No. 6-3224 Attorney at Law 910 Kearney Street Laramie, WY 82070 Phone: (307) 760-6268 Email: reed@zarslaw.com KAMALA D.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 9:09-cv-00077-DWM Document 187-1 Filed 03/18/11 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, et al., v. Plaintiffs, KEN SALAZAR, et
More informationADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW. Deborah L. Cade Law Seminars International SEPA & NEPA CLE January 17, 2007
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW Deborah L. Cade Law Seminars International SEPA & NEPA CLE January 17, 2007 OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION STANDING STANDARD OF REVIEW SCOPE OF REVIEW INJUNCTIONS STATUTE
More informationCase 3:16-cv VC Document 28 Filed 02/16/17 Page 1 of 24
Case :-cv-00-vc Document Filed 0// Page of 0 COLIN O BRIEN, SB No. 0 cobrien@earthjustice.org ADRIENNE BLOCH, SB No. abloch@earthjustice.org HEATHER M. LEWIS, SB No. hlewis@earthjustice.org EARTHJUSTICE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. Center for Biological Diversity, No. 09-CV-8011-PCT-PGR ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :0-cv-00-PGR Document Filed 0//0 Page of 0 0 WO Center for Biological Diversity, vs. Plaintiff, United States Bureau of Land Management, et al., Defendants. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
More informationCase 1:12-cv JDB Document 25-2 Filed 08/20/12 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:12-cv-00111-JDB Document 25-2 Filed 08/20/12 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN FOREST RESOURCE COUNCIL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DANIEL M. ASHE
More informationCase 1:13-cv LJO-MJS Document 13 Filed 07/12/13 Page 1 of 15
Case :-cv-00-ljo-mjs Document Filed 0// Page of Robert A. Rosette (CA SBN ) Geoffrey M. Hash (CA SBN ) Nicole St. Germain (CA SBN ) ROSETTE, LLP Blue Ravine Rd., () - (Office) () - (Fax) rosette@rosettelaw.com
More informationCase 2:09-cv MCE-KJM Document 32 Filed 08/26/2009 Page 1 of 12
Case :0-cv-0-MCE-KJM Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 Alan Gura (Calif. Bar No. ) Gura & Possessky, PLLC 0 N. Columbus St., Suite 0 Alexandria, VA 0..0/Fax 0.. Donald E.J. Kilmer, Jr. (Calif. Bar No. )
More informationCase 2:15-cv DDP-JEM Document 75 Filed 12/15/15 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:1704
Case :-cv-00-ddp-jem Document Filed // Page of Page ID #:0 O UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES AMERICA, v. Plaintiff, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants. Case
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :-cv-0-dlr Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Neighbors of the Mogollon Rim, Inc., v. FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Plaintiff, United States Forest Service, Federal
More informationCase 2:17-cv WB Document 41 Filed 12/08/17 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:17-cv-04540-WB Document 41 Filed 12/08/17 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et
More informationMarch 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 informationCase 2:10-cv JES-SPC Document 48 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION
Case 2:10-cv-00106-JES-SPC Document 48 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION CONSERVANCY OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA; SIERRA CLUB; CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL
More informationCase 3:12-cv RCJ-WGC Document 26 Filed 07/13/12 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case :-cv-00-rcj-wgc Document Filed 0// Page of JOHN P. PARRIS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. Law Offices of John P. Parris South Third Street, Suite Las Vegas, Nevada Telephone: (0)--00 Facsimile: (0)--0 ATTORNEY
More informationCase 3:18-cv MMD-CBC Document 25 Filed 01/03/19 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case :-cv-00-mmd-cbc Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC JOHN P. DESMOND Nevada Bar No. BRIAN R. IRVINE Nevada Bar No. 00 West Liberty Street Suite 0 Reno, NV 0 Tel: () -00 Fax: () 0-00
More informationCase 2:14-cv CJB-MBN Document 32 Filed 12/12/14 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 2:14-cv-00649-CJB-MBN Document 32 Filed 12/12/14 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ATCHAFALAYA BASINKEEPER and LOUISIANA CRAWFISH No. 2:14-cv-00649-CJB-MBN PRODUCERS
More informationb reme gourt of the i niteb tatee
No. 07-1182 b reme gourt of the i niteb tatee MICHIGAN CIVIL RIGHTS INITIATIVE COMMITTEE and AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS FOUNDATION, V. Petitioners, COALITION TO DEFEND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION; COALITION TO DEFEND
More informationCase 1:18-cv ABJ Document 19 Filed 02/13/18 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Plaintiff, Defendants.
Case 1:18-cv-00011-ABJ Document 19 Filed 02/13/18 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR., Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ROD J. ROSENSTEIN,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :0-cv-0-DGC Document Filed //0 Page of 0 WO Gila River Indian Community, a federally recognized Indian Tribe, vs. Plaintiff, United States of America, Defendant. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
More information4:07-cv RGK-CRZ Doc # 92 Filed: 04/15/13 Page 1 of 8 - Page ID # 696 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
4:07-cv-03101-RGK-CRZ Doc # 92 Filed: 04/15/13 Page 1 of 8 - Page ID # 696 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA RICHARD M. SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs, C.A. NO. 4:07-CV-3101 v.
More informationCase 2:15-cv JCC Document 28 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 9
Case :-cv-0-jcc Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE PUGET SOUNDKEEPER ALLIANCE and SIERRA CLUB v. Plaintiffs, SCOTT PRUITT, in
More informationCase 1:08-cv EGS Document 10-2 Filed 11/25/2008 Page 1 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:08-cv-01689-EGS Document 10-2 Filed 11/25/2008 Page 1 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CALIFORNIA CATTLEMEN S ASSOCIATION, et al., v. Plaintiffs, DIRK KEMPTHORNE,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON. DBSI/TRI IV LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, an Idaho limited partnership;
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON DBSI/TRI IV LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, an Idaho limited partnership; FOREST HILLS INVESTORS OF COQUILLE, OREG. LTD, an Oregon limited partnership;
More informationCase 6:15-cv TC Document 15 Filed 11/12/15 Page 1 of 26
Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 15 Filed 11/12/15 Page 1 of 26 C. Marie Eckert, OSB No. 883490 marie.eckert@millernash.com Suzanne C. Lacampagne, OSB No. 951705 suzanne.lacampagne@millernash.com MILLER
More informationCase 1:11-cv RHS-WDS Document 5 Filed 11/10/11 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Case 1:11-cv-00946-RHS-WDS Document 5 Filed 11/10/11 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO LOS ALAMOS STUDY GROUP, v. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
More informationCase 7:16-cv O Document 69 Filed 01/24/17 Page 1 of 12 PageID 1796
Case 7:16-cv-00108-O Document 69 Filed 01/24/17 Page 1 of 12 PageID 1796 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE, INC. et al.,
More informationCase: Document: Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No.
Case: 17-10135 Document: 00513935913 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. THOMAS E. PRICE, Secretary
More informationCase 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 informationCase 5:07-cv VAP-JCR Document 29 Filed 02/18/2008 Page 1 of 11
Case :0-cv-0-VAP-JCR Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 LESTER J. MARSTON - California State Bar No. 000 E-mail: marston@pacbell.net RAPPORT AND MARSTON 0 West Perkins Street P.O. Box Ukiah, CA Telephone:
More informationIN 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 informationCase 1:12-cv DBH Document 21 Filed 05/09/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 97 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE
Case 1:12-cv-00059-DBH Document 21 Filed 05/09/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 97 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE MAINE ASSOCIATION OF RETIREES, et al. Plaintiffs, and MAINE STATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 16-605 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- TOWN OF CHESTER,
More informationORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO
USCA Case #17-1014 Document #1670187 Filed: 04/07/2017 Page 1 of 11 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO. 17-1014 ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO. 15-1363 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More informationWILLIAM J. OLSON, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Case: 19-1268 Document: 14 Filed: 03/21/2019 Page: 1 WILLIAM J. OLSON (VA, D.C.) HERBERT W. TITUS (VA OF COUNSEL) JEREMIAH L. MORGAN (D.C., CA ONLY) ROBERT J. OLSON (VA, D.C.) WILLIAM J. OLSON, P.C. ATTORNEYS
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
Appellate Case: 15-2047 Document: 01019415575 Date Filed: 04/15/2015 Page: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex. rel. State Engineer Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationMichael B. Wigmore Direct Phone: Direct Fax: January 14, 2009 VIA HAND DELIVERY
Michael B. Wigmore Direct Phone: 202.373.6792 Direct Fax: 202.373.6001 michael.wigmore@bingham.com VIA HAND DELIVERY Jeffrey N. Lüthi, Clerk of the Panel Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Thurgood
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case :-cv-0-jgz Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 Defenders of Wildlife, et al., v. Sally Jewell, et al., Plaintiffs, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Defendants. FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA No. CV--0-TUC-JGZ
More informationCase 1:16-cv WJ-KBM Document 20-1 Filed 06/06/16 Page 1 of 27 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Case 1:16-cv-00462-WJ-KBM Document 20-1 Filed 06/06/16 Page 1 of 27 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND FISH, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES
More informationIN 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 informationCase 1:10-cv EGS Document 44 Filed 03/15/12 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:10-cv-02007-EGS Document 44 Filed 03/15/12 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY, and PROJECT
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 9:09-cv-00077-DWM Document 194 Filed 03/22/11 Page 1 of 16 Rebecca K. Smith P.O. Box 7584 Missoula, Montana 59807 (406 531-8133 (406 830-3085 FAX publicdefense@gmail.com James Jay Tutchton Tutchton
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON
Lane, et al v. Capital Acquisitions, et al Doc. 217 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 04-60602-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON RICHARD LANE and FAITH LANE, v. Plaintiffs, CAPITAL ACQUISITIONS
More informationCase 2:17-cv JLR Document 94 Filed 02/22/17 Page 1 of 11
Case :-cv-00-jlr Document Filed 0// Page of The Honorable James L. Robart IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., CIVIL ACTION NO. :-cv-00-jlr
More informationCase: 1:13-cv Document #: 19 Filed: 06/13/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:901
Case: 1:13-cv-01569 Document #: 19 Filed: 06/13/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:901 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PAUL DUFFY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO DIVISION
!aaassseee :::- - -cccvvv- - -000000000- - -LLLJJJOOO- - -BBBAAAMMM DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt FFFiiillleeeddd 000///000/// PPPaaagggeee ooofff HOOPER, LUNDY & BOOKMAN, INC. 0 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 000
More informationAppellate 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 informationCase 1:06-cv JR Document 25 Filed 02/01/2008 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:06-cv-02236-JR Document 25 Filed 02/01/2008 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY ) No. 06-2245 (JR) v. DIRK KEMPTHORNE, et al., )
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division VIRGINIA STATE CONFERENCE OF ) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ) ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED ) PEOPLE BRANCHES, et al.,
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. CLEAN AIR COUNCIL, et al.,
USCA Case #17-1145 Document #1683079 Filed: 07/07/2017 Page 1 of 15 NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT No. 17-1145 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT CLEAN AIR
More informationORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Catskill Mountainkeeper, Inc., Clean Air Council, Delaware-Otsego Audubon Society, Inc., Riverkeeper, Inc.,
More informationCase 1:18-cv ABJ Document 18 Filed 02/06/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Case 1:18-cv-00011-ABJ Document 18 Filed 02/06/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR., Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ROD J. ROSENSTEIN,
More informationAssociation ( SBA ), the Patrolmen s Benevolent Association of the City of New
Case: 13-3088 Document: 500 Page: 1 08/18/2014 1298014 10 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ----------------------------------------------------X DAVID FLOYD, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
More informationBEFORE THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Denver Board of Water Commissioners ) Amendment Application for ) FERC Project No. 2035-0999 Gross Reservoir Hydroelectric Project ) SAVE THE
More informationCase 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 informationORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 19, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #15-1385 Document #1670218 Filed: 04/07/2017 Page 1 of 10 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 19, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Murray Energy Corporation,
More informationCase 1:11-cv NMG Document 53 Filed 09/17/12 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:11-cv-12070-NMG Document 53 Filed 09/17/12 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS KG URBAN ENTERPRISES, LLC Plaintiff, v. DEVAL L. PATRICK, in his official capacity
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER REGARDING PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Case 4:17-cv-00031-BMM Document 232 Filed 12/07/18 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION INDIGENOUS ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK and NORTH COAST RIVER
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
1 1 1 1 1 1 THOMAS P. O BRIEN United States Attorney CHRISTINE C. EWELL Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Criminal Division CHRISTOPHER BRUNWIN Assistant United States Attorney Deputy Chief, Violent
More informationCase 1:09-cv JLK Document 80-1 Filed 02/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:09-cv-00091-JLK Document 80-1 Filed 02/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 Civil Action No. 09-cv-00091-JLK IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO COLORADO ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, IDAHO CV 01-640-RE (Lead Case) WILDLIFE FEDERATION, WASHINGTON CV 05-23-RE WILDLIFE FEDERATION, SIERRA CLUB,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:13-cv-00518-RBJ Document 108 Filed 09/10/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00518-RBJ WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, v.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN RUTHELLE FRANK, et al., v. SCOTT WALKER, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 11-CV-1128 Defendants. LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS OF WISCONSIN,
More informationMichael Saul (pro hac vice) Center for Biological Diversity 1536 Wynkoop Street, Suite 421
Case 4:17-cv-00030-BMM Document 29 Filed 05/18/17 Page 1 of 7 Jenny K. Harbine 313 East Main Street Bozeman, MT 59715 jharbine@earthjustice.org (406 586-9699 Phone (406 586-9695 Fax Edward B. Zukoski (pro
More informationREPLY IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS MOTION TO INTERVENE
2:17-cv-13080-PDB-EAS Doc # 24 Filed 01/09/18 Pg 1 of 10 Pg ID 551 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN KRISTY DUMONT; DANA DUMONT; ERIN BUSK-SUTTON; REBECCA BUSK-SUTTON;
More information