Case 6:04-cv GAP-KRS Document 55 Filed 01/17/2005 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
|
|
- Felicity Moody
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case 6:04-cv GAP-KRS Document 55 Filed 01/17/2005 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION CASE NO:6:04-cv-1576-ORL-31KRS ATLANTIC GREEN SEA TURTLE (Chelonia mydas), LEATHERBACK SEA TURTLE (Dermochelys coriacea), LOGGERHEAD TURTLE (Caretta caretta), KEMP S RIDLEY SEA TURTLE (Lepidochelys kempii), PIPING PLOVER (Charadrius melodus), SHIRLEY A. REYNOLDS, and ROBERT H. GODWIN, v. Plaintiffs, COUNTY COUNCIL OF VOLUSIA COUNTY FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE: STEVEN A. WILLIAMS Director; and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR: GALE A. NORTON, Secretary, Defendants. PLAINIFFS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT VOLUSIA COUNTY S (DISPOSITIVE) MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, ATLANTIC GREEN SEA TURTLE (Chelonia mydas), LEATHERBACK SEA TURTLE (Dermochelys coriacea), LOGGERHEAD TURTLE (Caretta caretta), KEMP S RIDLEY SEA TURTLE (Lepidochelys kempii), PIPING PLOVER (Charadrius melodus), SHIRLEY A. REYNOLDS, and ROBERT H. GODWIN, pursuant to
2 Case 6:04-cv GAP-KRS Document 55 Filed 01/17/2005 Page 2 of (b), Rules of the United State District Court for the Middle District of Florida, file this Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the defendant, County Council of Volusia County Florida s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint ( Motion ) and accompanying Memorandum of Law ( Memorandum ), and state: 1. The Motion requests this Court to dismiss this action. [Motion, p.9]. The Motion is not directed to any specific count in the Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; notably, some counts are pled in the alternative. [Amended Complaint, pp ]. 2. The Memorandum includes a standard of review section that argues that a motion to dismiss should be granted when, accepting the well pled facts as true and construing the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, it is clear no construction of the factual allegations will support a cause of action. [Memorandum, pp.6-7]. Plaintiffs argue that this action should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond a doubt that they can prove no set of facts in support of any claim for relief. See, U.S. v. Baxter Intern, Inc., 345 F.3d 866, 880 (11 th Cir. 2003); Roberts v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 146 F.3d 1305, 1307 (11 th Cir. 1998). This sufficiency threshold is exceedingly low. U.S. v. Baxter Intern, Inc., 345 F.3d at
3 Case 6:04-cv GAP-KRS Document 55 Filed 01/17/2005 Page 3 of Notwithstanding this standard of review assertion, defendant County has included several hundred pages of exhibits to the Memorandum, and the Motion is based upon matters not alleged in the plaintiffs Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. The Court should not consider these exhibits with regard to the Motion. Further, the Motion contains assertions regarding the Background of the Action and regarding the Amended Complaint that are not referenced to specific allegations in the Amended Complaint, or which purport to generally deny such assertions, and should not be considered for purposes of the Motion. [Motion, pp. 1-4]. County s Non-Availability Assertions 4. The Motion sets out four non-availability arguments. [Motion, 17-26]. These arguments are: non-availability of judicial review [Motion, 17-20]; non-availability of wrongful withholding theory [Motion, 21-22]; nonavailability of Failure to Enforce theory [Motion, 23-24]; and non-availability of Reinitiation of consultation theory. [Motion, 25-26]. None of these arguments are tied to specific counts of the Amended Complaint; none provide a basis for the dismissal of this action. 3
4 Case 6:04-cv GAP-KRS Document 55 Filed 01/17/2005 Page 4 of 19 These arguments really speak to some of plaintiffs claims against the federal defendants; the federal defendants filed an answer on January 11, 2005, rather than a motion to dismiss. 5. No federal agency action is at issue with respect to plaintiffs de novo claims regarding defendant County s alleged violations of the take of listed species under 16 U.S.C. s [Amended Complaint, Counts I and II]. 6. Count I of the Amended Complaint alleges the County s unlawful taking of Piping Plovers in violation of the ESA and implementing regulations for activities taken under the Beach Code. Allegedly, defendant County applied for an incidental take permit for Piping Plovers, but one was not issued. [Amended Complaint, 43]. Defendant County asks the Court to consider a 1996 Biological Opinion that no incidental take is anticipated for piping plovers. [Motion, 5; Memorandum, pp.2-3 and 13; Ex. 2, p.3; Ex. 5, p. 2]. 7. Plaintiffs object to consideration of matters not alleged in the Amended Complaint. However, even if it were proper to consider matters outside of the Complaint, a 1996 expectation that no take is anticipated is legally insufficient to thwart this Court s consideration of a 2004 claim of unlawful taking of Piping Plovers. Effective August 9, 2001, defendant USFWS s Final Rule designated critical 4
5 Case 6:04-cv GAP-KRS Document 55 Filed 01/17/2005 Page 5 of 19 habitat for wintering piping plovers in unit FL-34 (Volusia County). [66 Fed. Reg. p.36038, et seq. (July 10, 2001)]. The Amended Complaint does not allege that the defendants considered the critical habitat designation and piping plovers with regard to any of the ten amendments to the ITP or the defendant County s renewal application. [See Amended Complaint, 68-81]. The critical habitat designation was not considered in Loggerhead Turtle v. County Council of Volusia County, Fla., 120 F.Supp.2d 1005 (M.D. Fla. 2000). Piping Plovers are a migratory bird and are allegedly being taken within critical habitat that was designated after the ITP was issued. Critical habitat designations serve to protect species vulnerable to extinction. Forest Guardians v. Babbitt, 174 F.3d 1178, 1185 (10 th Cir. 1999). 8. As to endangered or threatened sea turtles, Count II of the Amended Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as to defendant County s unauthorized take of listed sea turtles. [Amended Complaint, 1-51, 63-64, 82-84, 103 and 132]. No federal agency action is at issue. Plaintiffs allege that by operation of the Administrative Procedure Act and USFWS s ESA regulations, defendant County s incidental take authorization ( ITP ) expired and accordingly defendant County is liable for sea turtle take caused by activities 5
6 Case 6:04-cv GAP-KRS Document 55 Filed 01/17/2005 Page 6 of 19 authorized under the Beach Code, as amended. See, 5 U.S.C. s. 558(c)(2); 50 C.F.R. ss (a), As to endangered or threatened sea turtles, Count III of the Amended Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief alleging that the federal defendants have established a pattern, practice and policy of indefinitely extending defendant County s expired ITP (or alternatively issued a de facto renewal permit), have taken agency action to issue amendments to an expired ITP, and have unreasonably withheld publication of the statutorily-required Federal Register notice as to the County s application. [Complaint, 1-27, 42-43, 52-81, & ]. These actions and failures to act are alleged to constitute agency action under 5 U.S.C. ss. 551 (6),(8),(13); 706(2); 16 U.S.C. s. 1539(c). 10. The Motion and Memorandum do not credit the general presumption that federal agency actions are subject to judicial review. 16 U.S.C. s. 706(a); Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 117 S.Ct. 1154, --- L.Ed.2d 281 (1997). See also, Fahim v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 278 F.3d 1216, 1217 (11 th Cir. 2002). Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985), only held that an agency s decision not to take enforcement action was not agency action subject to judicial review. In addition, in the case at bar, there is law to be applied cited provisions of the ESA and 6
7 Case 6:04-cv GAP-KRS Document 55 Filed 01/17/2005 Page 7 of 19 implementing regulations. Most of the defendant County s citations are inapposite as to the allegations in the Amended Complaint. Defendant County s reliance on Loggerhead Turtle v. County Council of Volusia County, Fla., 120 F.Supp.2d 1005 (M.D. Fla. 2000), ignores the significance of the timing of the reconsultation... built into the permitting procedure. Id. at The Court noted that the ITP was to expire in 2001, but did not anticipate that the defendant County would fail to make a timely and sufficient renewal application, or that the federal defendants would withhold publication of a Federal Register notice of receipt of the ITP application or fail to take action on the renewal for years. 11. National Parks Conservation Ass n. v. Norton, 324 F.3d 1229 (11 th Cir. 2003), provides in part: We agree, as a general matter, that an administrative agency cannot legitimately evade judicial review forever by continually postponing any consequence-laden action and then challenging federal jurisdiction on final agency action grounds. See, Cobell v. Norton, 240 F.3d 1081, 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2001)( As this court has noted in the past, where an agency is under an unequivocal statutory duty to act, failure to so act constitutes, in effect, an affirmative act that triggers final agency action review...; Sierra Club v. Thomas, 828 F.2d 783, 793 (D.C. Cir. 1987)... 7
8 Case 6:04-cv GAP-KRS Document 55 Filed 01/17/2005 Page 8 of 19 Notably, in National Parks Conservation Ass n. v. Norton, the federal agency had published notice of its pending decision-making action and draft environmental impact statement, and had received public comments which were being considering in the imminent formulation of, a final decision regarding the future of the Stiltsville buildings. Id. at The Amended Complaint alleges the federal defendants have not published the ESA-required notice of the County s application, which publication is a mandatory duty under the ESA. [Amended Complaint, 94]. Shall means shall. See, Forest Guardians v. Babbitt, 174 F.3d 1178, 1187 (10 th Cir. 1999). 12. National Parks Conservation Ass n. v. Norton extensively discussed Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 117 S.Ct. 1154, --- L.Ed.2d 281 (1997) and Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985). The 11 th Circuit noted that the Biological Opinion at issue in Bennett v. Spear had direct and appreciable legal consequences. See, National Parks Conservation Ass n. v. Norton, 324 F.3d at 1237, citing Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 178, 117 S.Ct. at The 11 th Circuit summarized the applicable standard: whether rights or obligations have been fixed by the agency s behavior; and whether it has taken or refused to take action so as to impose any legal consequence 8
9 Case 6:04-cv GAP-KRS Document 55 Filed 01/17/2005 Page 9 of 19 on any party. National Parks Conservation Ass n. v. Norton, 324 F.3d at See also, Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Whitman, 336 F.3d 1237, 1248 (11 th Cir. 2003), rehearing denied, 82 Fed. Appx. 220, cert. denied, Leavitt v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 124 S.Ct Count III sufficiently alleges that the federal defendants behavior have real consequences on the rights and obligations of parties to this action, including: amending the ITP after its expiration, consideration of defendant County s untimely renewal application as extending the expired permit, and failure to publish Federal Register notice of the application. 14. Count IV of the Amended Complaint is, in part, based on the federal defendants alleged failure to adequately evaluate environmental impacts in conjunction with the four most-recent ITP amendments (starting on January 24, 2003) and the ITP renewal application. [Amended Complaint, 1-27, 42-43, & ]. The last environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact was noticed in the March 11, 1996 Federal Register. [Amended Complaint, Ex. 3]. The application and ITP permit were for a five-year period. [Amended Complaint, Ex. 3 & 4]. Since that time, portions of the ITP permit area have been designated as critical habitat for the Piping Plover, much of the ITP 9
10 Case 6:04-cv GAP-KRS Document 55 Filed 01/17/2005 Page 10 of 19 permit area is alleged to have been substantially eroded by tropical storms, and defendant County has amended its Beach Code. [See, 61 Fed. Reg. p. 9717; 66 Fed. Reg. pp.36038, 36107, 36119; Amended Complaint, 43-46, & Comp. Ex. 3]. Each of these arguably requires further NEPA review as extraordinary circumstances. See, 69 Fed. Reg Count V of the Amended Complaint, is plead in the alternative to Counts II-IV. It is a citizen suit to enforce the terms of federal regulations and the ITP as amended no agency action is directly at issue. [Complaint, 1-18, 28-36, 42-55, 60-85, 95-96, & ]. See, 16 U.S.C. ss. 1538(a)(1)(B) and (g), 1540(g), 50 C.F.R. s The Enforcement aspect of the ITP includes the statement: In the event the identified problems are not corrected by the County within 2 weeks, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will initiate enforcement action against the Permittee. [Amended Complaint, Ex. 4, page 22]. The Amended Complaint alleges that defendant County has failed to timely prevent motor vehicle operation in the conservation zones notwithstanding the Defendant USFWS s identification of that problem. [Amended Complaint, ]. 16. It is illogical to suggest that a citizen can sue to enforce the ESA to prevent unauthorized take of listed species, but cannot sue to enforce alleged violations of 10
11 Case 6:04-cv GAP-KRS Document 55 Filed 01/17/2005 Page 11 of 19 federal regulations that require compliance with the conditions of an incidental take permit, which is a limited, conditional grant to take specific listed species under detailed ITP/HCP terms and conditions. 17. Count VI of the Amended Complaint is also pled in the alternative to Counts II, III and IV. [Amended Complaint, 1-14, 16-17, 25-27, 52-55, 60-62, 65-68, 71-76, 79-81, 95-96, 100, & ]. It seeks to enforce mandatory language in 16 U.S.C. s. 1539(a)(2)(c)( Secretary shall revoke a permit...if he finds that the permittee is not complying with the terms and conditions... ). 18. Heckler v. Chaney, supra, did not construe the ESA including 16 U.S.C. s. 1539(a)(2)(c). Unlike the Food and Drug Administration statutes at issue in Heckler v. Chaney, which were either permissive or which required the Attorney General to prosecute crimes, in enacting 16 U.S.C. s. 1539(a)(2)(c), Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to revoke a ITP upon a finding of non-compliance. 19. Notwithstanding the discussion of Heckler v. Chaney, and citation to 50 C.F.R. ss and in Loggerhead Turtle v. County Council of Volusia County, Fla., 120 F.Supp.2d 1005, (M.D. Fla. 2000), plaintiffs should be given the opportunity to prove that the defendant Norton, through USFWS staff, has found that defendant County 11
12 Case 6:04-cv GAP-KRS Document 55 Filed 01/17/2005 Page 12 of 19 is not complying with the terms and conditions of the ITP, especially with regard to the prohibition on vehicles in the conservation zones. 16 U.S.C. s. 1539(a)(2)(c) speaks in terms of a finding regarding an ITP a specific type of permit; the cited regulations concern action to suspend or revoke any type of permit issued under 50 C.F.R. Subpart C. This more-specific statute applicable to ITPs does not apply the jeopardy standard regarding the statutory nondiscretionary duty to revoke an ITP upon a finding of noncompliance. 20. Plaintiffs allege a finding of non-compliance with an ITP. [See Amended Complaint, , Ex. 8 & 10]. Primary Jurisdiction 21. Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292, 1298 (11 th Cir. 2001)(citations omitted) acknowledges that a court may dismiss or stay an action pending a resolution of some portion of the actions by an administrative agency. Primary jurisdiction comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative agency; in such case the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its views. The 12
13 Case 6:04-cv GAP-KRS Document 55 Filed 01/17/2005 Page 13 of 19 federal defendants have not moved to dismiss based on the primary jurisdiction doctrine. 22. Plaintiffs have alleged compliance with the ESA s only jurisdictional requirement the 60-day notice of intent to sue requirement, including notice to the federal defendants. None of the claims raised by plaintiffs have been placed in the special competence of the federal defendants to the contrary, the ESA specifically permits citizens suits; and the plaintiffs APA claims are matters to be resolved by this Court de novo, not upon review of some action by the federal defendants. Res Judicata 23. Norfolk Southern Corp. v. Chevron, U.S.A., 279 F.Supp.2d 1250, 1260 (M.D. Fla. 2003), sets out the applicable requirements for defendant County s assertion: (1) the prior decision must have been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) there must have been a final judgment on the merits; (3) both cases must involve the same parties or their privies; and (4) both cases must involve the same causes of action. (citing Davila v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 326 F.3d 1183, 1187 (11 th Cir. 2003); In re Piper Aircraft Corp., 244 F.3d 1289, 1296 (11 th Cir. 2001). 24. The third and fourth required criteria are absent in the case at bar. The Piping Plover and Robert H. Godwin 13
14 Case 6:04-cv GAP-KRS Document 55 Filed 01/17/2005 Page 14 of 19 were not parties to Loggerhead Turtle v. County Council of Volusia County, Fla., 896 F.Supp (M.D. Fla. 1995); Loggerhead Turtle v. County Council of Volusia County, Florida, 148 F.3d 1231 (11 th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1081, 119 S. Ct. 1488, 143 L.Ed.2d 570 (1999); Loggerhead Turtle v. County Council of Volusia County, Fla., 92 F.Supp.2d 1296 (M.D. Fla. 2000); and Loggerhead Turtle v. County Council of Volusia County, Fla., 120 F.Supp.2d 1005 (M.D. Fla. 2000) ( Loggerhead litigation ). Nor are the causes of action identical: for example, there have been considerable changes in circumstances, including: the piping plover critical habitat designation in 2001, new observations of the piping plover including observations in , dramatically-changed beach conditions from the tropical storms of 2004, and the expiration of, amendments to, and belated renewal application regarding the ITP. 25. Moreover, a priori, ESA violations alleged to have occurred after the final judgment was issued on May 17, 2000 in the Loggerhead litigation could not have been considered by the Court as part of the administrative record. The Plaintiffs have amended their Complaint to address alleged violations of the ITP since March 24, 2000 the date of the partial summary judgment in the Loggerhead litigation, reconsideration or amendment of which was denied by the 14
15 Case 6:04-cv GAP-KRS Document 55 Filed 01/17/2005 Page 15 of 19 Court on May 17, Loggerhead Turtle v. County Council of Volusia County, Fla., 120 F.Supp.2d at The May 17, 2000, judgment was based upon the Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, filed on or about April 29, Collateral Attack 26. The Amended Complaint alleges violations that occurred since the date of the prior Loggerhead judgment March 24, Moreover, the prior Loggerhead judgment did not adjudicate the current facts and circumstances regarding the take of Piping Plover in designated critical habitat Unit FL-34, the last four amendments to the ITP, or the 2004 changes to the beach caused by tropical storm events. Stare Decisis 27. Stare Decisis accords a court discretion to depart from one of its own prior holdings if a compelling reason to do so exists. Johnson v. DeSoto County Bd. of Com rs., 72 F.3d 1556, 1559 (11 th Cir. 1996)(emphasis supplied, citation omitted). 28. None of the Counts in the Amended Complaint in this action are contrary to any holding in the Loggerhead litigation. The decision to issue the ITP is not at issue. The decision not to revoke was based upon a record developed 15
16 Case 6:04-cv GAP-KRS Document 55 Filed 01/17/2005 Page 16 of 19 prior to the events alleged in the Amended Complaint. No attack on the failure to reinitiate consultation is alleged. Moreover, even if a claim in the Amended Complaint were contrary to a holding in the Loggerhead litigation, dismissal is not mandatory. McGinley v. Houston, 361 F.3d 1328, 1331 (11 th Cir. 2004). Ripeness & Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies 29. Defendant County s ripeness and exhaustion arguments can only go to the pending ITP renewal action. [Memorandum pp ]. Since take of Piping Plover was not authorized in the ITP, the renewal action is irrelevant to Count I. Count II alleges that unlawful take of listed sea turtles is occurring and seeks to prevent such unauthorized take of listed sea turtles in the future based upon the expiration of the ITP by operation of the law and implementing ESA regulations. 30. Counts III and IV allege either a de facto renewal, or unlawful amendments of an expired ITP, and the failure to honor the statutory Federal Register notice requirement as to the defendant County s application. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is generally not jurisdictional. Tennessee Valley Auth. v. U.S.E.P.A., 278 F.3d 1184, (11 th Cir. 2002), withdrawn in part, Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Whitman, 336 F.3d 1237, 1248 (11 th Cir. 2003), 16
17 Case 6:04-cv GAP-KRS Document 55 Filed 01/17/2005 Page 17 of 19 rehearing denied, 82 Fed. Appx. 220, cert. denied, Leavitt v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 124 S.Ct Even assuming that any administrative remedies were available as to these Counts, they would clearly be inadequate to protect listed species from unlawful take. Id. 31. Counts V and VI, in the alternative, allege that if the ITP is in force, the ITP as amended is being violated and that the federal defendants had a duty to revoke the ITP given findings of non-compliance including continued vehicle operation in the conservation zones. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to deny the County s Motion to Dismiss. Dated this 17th day of January, Respectfully submitted, /s/ Ross Stafford Burnaman Ross Stafford Burnaman Fla. Bar No Ross Stafford Burnaman - Attorney at Law 1018 Holland Drive Tallahassee, Florida (850) Trial Counsel for Plaintiffs CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 17
18 Case 6:04-cv GAP-KRS Document 55 Filed 01/17/2005 Page 18 of 19 I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 17th day of January 2005, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by electronic filing to: Mary Brennan, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Jamie E. Seaman Assistant County Attorney Volusia County 123 West Indiana Avenue Deland, Florida Paul I. Perez United States Attorney Middle District of Florida 400 North Tampa Street Tampa, Florida Scott Park Assistant United States Attorney Middle District of Florida 501 West Church Street, Suite 300 Orlando, Florida Mark A. Brown, Senior Trial Attorney John S. Most, Trial Attorney Thomas L. Sansonetti, Assistant Attorney General Jean Williams, Section Chief U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 7369 Washington, D.C Respectfully submitted, /s/ Ross Stafford Burnaman Ross Stafford Burnaman Fla. Bar No Ross Stafford Burnaman - Attorney at Law 18
19 Case 6:04-cv GAP-KRS Document 55 Filed 01/17/2005 Page 19 of Holland Drive Tallahassee, Florida (850) Trial Counsel for Plaintiffs 19
Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 04/12/18 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:18-cv-00862 Document 1 Filed 04/12/18 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, 378 N. Main Avenue Tucson, AZ 85701, v. Plaintiff, RYAN
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) INTRODUCTION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, 378 N. Main Avenue Tucson, AZ 85701, v. Plaintiff, RYAN ZINKE, in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S.
More informationSTIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 05-CV-274-HA
KARIN J. IMMERGUT, United States Attorney JEFFREY K. HANDY, OSB #84051 jeff.handy@usdoj.gov Assistant United States Attorney 1000 S.W. Third Ave., Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204-2902 Telephone: (503) 727-1013
More informationNOTE CWA AND ESA: NINE IS A PARTY, TEN IS A CROWD NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS V. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, 127 S. CT (2007).
NOTE CWA AND ESA: NINE IS A PARTY, TEN IS A CROWD NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS V. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, 127 S. CT. 2518 (2007). Malori Dahmen* I. Introduction... 703 II. Overview of Statutory
More informationCase 1:08-cv RMU Document 53 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:08-cv-00380-RMU Document 53 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPALACHIAN VOICES, et al., : : Plaintiffs, : Civil Action No.: 08-0380 (RMU) : v.
More informationConservation Congress v. U.S. Forest Service
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Fall 2013 Case Summaries Conservation Congress v. U.S. Forest Service Katelyn J. Hepburn University of Montana School of Law, katelyn.hepburn@umontana.edu
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
Case 4:10-cv-01759 Document 18 Filed in TXSD on 06/10/10 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION FOOD & WATER WATCH, INC. and KENNETH ABBOTT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 378 N. Main Ave. Tucson, AZ 85702, v. Plaintiff, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 1849 C Street NW, Room 3358
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. MEMORANDUM OPINION (March 19, 2013)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SIERRA CLUB, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 11-993 (CKK) UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION (March
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 informationCottonwood Environmental Law Center v. United States Forest Service
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Case Summaries 2015-2016 Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. United States Forest Service Maresa A. Jenson Alexander Blewett III School of Law at the University
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
Nault v. The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Foundation Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION CAROLYN NAULT, Plaintiff, -vs- Case No. 6:09-cv-1229-Orl-31GJK
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON
Don Webb, OSB # 97429 INSTITUTE FOR WILDLIFE PROTECTION 2630 Elinor St. Eugene, OR 97403 Tel: (54) 434-6630 Fax: (54) 434-6702 Email: iwplit@comcast.net Attorney for Plaintiff RONALD J. TENPAS, Assistant
More informationCase 1:16-cv JMS-DML Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 189
Case 1:16-cv-02431-JMS-DML Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 189 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION JOHN DOE, formerly known as ) JANE DOE,
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 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:17-cv-00816 Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, 378 N. Main Avenue Tucson, AZ 85701 v. Plaintiff,
More informationCase 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 11/08/18 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:18-cv-02576 Document 1 Filed 11/08/18 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, 378 N. Main Avenue Tucson, AZ 85701 Plaintiff,
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 informationCase 1:16-cv EGS Document 21 Filed 07/05/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:16-cv-01008-EGS Document 21 Filed 07/05/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. No. 1:16-cv-01008-EGS S. M.
More informationMEMORANDUM 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 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 1:04-cv RWR Document 27-2 Filed 01/14/2005 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:04-cv-00063-RWR Document 27-2 Filed 01/14/2005 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY et al., go Plaintiffs, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES
More information976 F.Supp (1997)
976 F.Supp. 1119 (1997) SOUTHWEST WILLIAMSON COUNTY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, a non-profit Tennessee corporation v. Rodney E. SLATER, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department
More informationCase 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 informationCase 1:14-cv KMW Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:14-cv-20945-KMW Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 1 of 9 AMERICANS FOR IMMIGRANT JUSTICE, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
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 informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. v. ) Civ. Action No (EGS) MEMORANDUM OPINION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE ) PREVENTION OF CRUELTY ) TO ANIMALS, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civ. Action No. 03-2006 (EGS) ) RINGLING BROTHERS
More informationUNITED 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 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 informationUNITED 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 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 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 informationLoggerhead Turtle v. County Council Of Volusia County, Florida: Implied Permitting As A Justiciable Cause Of Action
Ocean and Coastal Law Journal Volume 6 Number 1 Article 9 2001 Loggerhead Turtle v. County Council Of Volusia County, Florida: Implied Permitting As A Justiciable Cause Of Action Sean W. Kerwin University
More informationCase 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 03/16/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:17-cv-00479 Document 1 Filed 03/16/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GREENPEACE, INC. 702 H Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20001, Plaintiff, Civil
More informationUNITED 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 informationCIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-CV-218
Case 5:12-cv-00218-C Document 7-1 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID 132 JAMES C. WETHERBE, PH.D., Plaintiff, v. TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY, Defendant. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA ADMINISTRATION COMMISSION
RICHARD A. BURGESS, STATE OF FLORIDA ADMINISTRATION COMMISSION Petitioner, v. CASE NO. ACC-10-008 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, and CITY OF EDGEWATER, and Respondents, HAMMOCK CREEK GREEN LLC, Intervenor.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Miami Division. Case No CIV-KING
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Miami Division Case No. 03-20161 CIV-KING MARIE JEANNE JEAN, in her individual capacity, and as parent and legal guardian for minors VLADIMY PIERRE
More informationCase 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 informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA. No.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, v. Plaintiff, No. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, Defendant. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
More informationCUSHMAN PROJECT FERC Project No Settlement Agreement for the Cushman Project
CUSHMAN PROJECT FERC Project No. 460 Settlement Agreement for the Cushman Project January 12, 2009 Cushman Project FERC Project No. 460 Settlement Agreement for the Cushman Project Table of Contents Page
More informationCase 1:17-cv UU Document 80 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/17/2018 Page 1 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 1:17-cv-24444-UU Document 80 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/17/2018 Page 1 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No.: 17-CV-24444-UNGARO/TURNOFF CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY;
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION. v. Case No. 8:10-cv-2904-T-23TBM
Lee v. PMSI, Inc. Doc. 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION WENDI J. LEE, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. Case No. 8:10-cv-2904-T-23TBM PMSI, INC., Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO CITIZENS FOR SAN LUIS VALLEY - WATER PROTECTION COALITION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 08-cv- CITIZENS FOR SAN LUIS VALLEY - WATER PROTECTION COALITION Plaintiff, v. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, a federal
More informationCase: 1:08-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 03/10/08 Page 1 of 21 PageID #:1 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT NORTHWOODS WILDERNESS RECOVERY, THE MICHIGAN NATURE ASSOCIATION, DOOR COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, THE HABITAT EDUCATION CENTER,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SPIRIT OF THE SAGE COUNCIL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. No. 1:98CV01873(EGS GALE NORTON, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, et al., Defendants.
More informationCourthouse News Service
Case 4:09-cv-00543-JJM Document 1 Filed 09/24/09 Page 1 of 12 John Buse (CA Bar No. 163156) pro hac vice application pending Justin Augustine (CA Bar No. 235561) pro hac vice application pending CENTER
More informationCase 9:16-cv KAM Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2017 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 9:16-cv-81973-KAM Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2017 Page 1 of 13 MIGUEL RIOS AND SHIRLEY H. RIOS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 16-81973-CIV-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN
More informationCase 2:18-cv KJD-CWH Document 7 Filed 12/26/18 Page 1 of 7
Case :-cv-0-kjd-cwh Document Filed // Page of 0 MICHAEL R. BROOKS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 0 HUNTER S. DAVIDSON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 0 KOLESAR & LEATHAM 00 South Rampart Boulevard, Suite 00 Las Vegas, Nevada
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Case 3:10-cv-01936-M Document 24 Filed 07/20/11 Page 1 of 11 PageID 177 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC., v. Plaintiff,
More informationCase 1:02-cv RWR Document 41 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:02-cv-02156-RWR Document 41 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ORANNA BUMGARNER FELTER, ) et al., ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 02-2156 (RWR)
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 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 informationSUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CENTRAL DIVISION
DAMIEN M. SCHIFF, No. 1 dms@pacificlegal.org WENCONG FA, No. 0 wfa@pacificlegal.org KAYCEE M. ROYER, No. kroyer@pacificlegal.org Pacific Legal Foundation 0 G Street Sacramento, California 1 Telephone:
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ) ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY ) 962 Wayne Ave., Suite 610 ) Silver Spring, MD 20910 ) Civil Action 18-cv-45 ) Plaintiff,
More informationHawaii Longline Ass'n v. National Marine Fisheries Service: Are Regulatory Ambiguities Within The Endangered Species Act A Snake In The Grass?
Ocean and Coastal Law Journal Volume 8 Number 2 Article 4 2002 Hawaii Longline Ass'n v. National Marine Fisheries Service: Are Regulatory Ambiguities Within The Endangered Species Act A Snake In The Grass?
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED FEB 12 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ALASKA OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION; et al., v. Plaintiffs-Appellees, WILBUR
More informationCase 1:09-cv SPM-GRJ Document 91 Filed 07/05/11 Page 1 of 30
Case 1:09-cv-00259-SPM-GRJ Document 91 Filed 07/05/11 Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GAINESVILLE DIVISION SEA TURTLE CONSERVANCY; CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 6:10-cv-00414-GAP-DAB Document 102 Filed 01/23/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID 726 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. and NURDEEN MUSTAFA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Plaintiffs,
More informationCase 3:14-cv MMH-MCR Document 33 Filed 02/16/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID 171
Case 3:14-cv-00873-MMH-MCR Document 33 Filed 02/16/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID 171 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION DANIEL RUDDELL, on his own behalf and on behalf
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC05-2130 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING, vs. APPELLANT, GULFSTREAM PARK RACING ASSOCIATION,
More informationCase 1:14-cv IMK Document 125 Filed 06/16/14 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 1959
Case 1:14-cv-00075-IMK Document 125 Filed 06/16/14 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 1959 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Plaintiff, WATSON
More informationCase 3:16-cv WHO Document 60 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 20
Case :-cv-0-who Document 0 Filed // Page of 0 0 0 JOHN C. CRUDEN, Assistant Attorney General Environment & Natural Resources Division SETH M. BARSKY, Chief S. JAY GOVINDAN, Assistant Chief ROBERT P. WILLIAMS,
More informationCase 1:14-cv DJC Document 38 Filed 09/02/15 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:14-cv-13648-DJC Document 38 Filed 09/02/15 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) ) OXFAM AMERICA, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 14-13648-DJC UNITED
More informationCase 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 02/02/18 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:18-cv-00246 Document 1 Filed 02/02/18 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION, 1333 H Street NW 11th Floor Washington, DC 20005,
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 informationMARTIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MARTIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2401 S.E. MONTEREY ROAD STUART, FL 34996 DOUG SMITH Commissioner, District 1 November 26, 2018 Telephone: (772) 288-5925 Fax: (772) 288-5439 Email: eelder@martin.fl.us
More informationCase 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 informationCase 2:09-cv DLG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 1 of 14
Case 2:09-cv-14118-DLG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2009 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT PIERCE DIVISION CLOSED CIVIL CASE Case No. 09-14118-CIV-GRAHAM/LYNCH
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 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 informationCase 5:18-cv Document 85 Filed 03/21/18 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 7313
Case 5:18-cv-11111 Document 85 Filed 03/21/18 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 7313 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA Elkins Division CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, 378 Main
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STEVEN AFTERGOOD Plaintiff, v. Case No. 05-1307 (RBW NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE Defendant. PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before KELLY, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit DAVID FULLER; RUTH M. FULLER, grandparents, Plaintiffs - Appellants, FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT December 3, 2014 Elisabeth A.
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 informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION. v. Case No. 6:14-cv-668-Orl-37KRS ORDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION LELAND FOSTER, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 6:14-cv-668-Orl-37KRS DEAD RIVER CAUSEWAY, LLC, Defendant. ORDER This cause is before the
More informationCase 4:05-cv Y Document 110 Filed 04/29/08 Page 1 of 8 PageID 1111 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION
Case 4:05-cv-00470-Y Document 110 Filed 04/29/08 Page 1 of 8 PageID 1111 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION RICHARD FRAME, WENDALL DECKER, SCOTT UPDIKE, JUAN NUNEZ,
More informationCase 4:18-cv KGB-DB-BSM Document 14 Filed 03/02/18 Page 1 of 6 FILED
Case 4:18-cv-00116-KGB-DB-BSM Document 14 Filed 03/02/18 Page 1 of 6 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MARO 2 2018 ~A~E,5 gormack, CLERK y DEPCLERK IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
More informationCase 1:18-cv JAP-KBM Document 11 Filed 01/14/19 Page 1 of 16
Case 1:18-cv-01194-JAP-KBM Document 11 Filed 01/14/19 Page 1 of 16 SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations ROBERT J. URAM, Fed. Bar No.
More informationNos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-15754, 04/20/2018, ID: 10845100, DktEntry: 87, Page 1 of 23 Nos. 15-15754, 15-15857 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HAVASUPAI TRIBE, GRAND CANYON TRUST, CENTER FOR
More informationCase 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 02/08/18 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:18-cv-00287 Document 1 Filed 02/08/18 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VETERAN ESQUIRE LEGAL ) SOLUTIONS, PLLC, ) 6303 Blue Lagoon Drive ) Suite 400
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
0 0 KEVIN V. RYAN, United States Attorney (SBN JAMES CODA, Assistant United States Attorney (SBN 0 (WI Northern District of California 0 Golden Gate Ave., Box 0 San Francisco, CA 0 THOMAS SANSONETTI, Assistant
More informationCase 8:10-cv RAL-TBM Document 19 Filed 04/22/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Case 8:10-cv-00024-RAL-TBM Document 19 Filed 04/22/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION OULAWLESSNESS PRODUCTIONS INC.; BAND OF OUTLAWS TOURING, INC.; and
More informationCase 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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF ORANGE, vs. Petitioner, CASE NO.: SC04-2045 Lower Tribunal No.: 5D03-4065 RALEIGH WILSON, SR. EVELYN WILSON and RALEIGH WILSON, JR., Respondents.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
James S. Angell Edward B. Zukoski Earthjustice 1631 Glenarm Place, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 623-9466 Heidi McIntosh #6277 Stephen H.M. Bloch #7813 Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 1471
More informationKaruk Tribe of California v. United States Forest Service
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Fall 2011 Case Summaries Karuk Tribe of California v. United States Forest Service Alexa Sample Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/plrlr
More informationCase 4:15-cv MW-CAS Document 20 Filed 09/01/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
Case 4:15-cv-00398-MW-CAS Document 20 Filed 09/01/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION CONGRESSWOMAN CORRINE BROWN, vs. Plaintiff, KEN DETZNER,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 3:14-cv-213 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 3:14-cv-213 GENERAL SYNOD OF THE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, et al., v. Plaintiffs, ROY COOPER, in his official capacity as the Attorney
More informationMEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION AND THE WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA AND THE U.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION AND THE WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA AND THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FOR A CRESTED CARACARA CONSERVATION
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA BRYSON CITY DIVISION. CIVIL CASE NO.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA BRYSON CITY DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 2:10cv08 BETTY MADEWELL AND ) EDWARD L. MADEWELL, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) O R
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No.: Lower Case No.: ID PETITIONER S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF. On Review from the District Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PAULA GORDON, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES Respondent. Case No.: Lower Case No.: ID03-449 PETITIONER S JURISDICTIONAL
More informationIN 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 informationI. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS STATE OF GEORGIA., by and through his parents,. and ; and., Plaintiffs, v. Docket No.: OSAH-DOE-SE-1203970-92-Miller LOWNDES COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION No GOLD (and consolidated cases)
Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 658 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2012 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION No. 04-21448-GOLD (and consolidated cases)
More informationUNITED 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 informationCase 1:03-cv EGS Document 433 Filed 02/23/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:03-cv-02006-EGS Document 433 Filed 02/23/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION ) OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMPLAINT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL GFRESPONSIBILITY, 962 Wayne Ave, Suite 610 CIVIL ACTION NO. COMPLAINT Silver Spring, MD 20910 Plaintiff, U.S.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. v. : Civil Action No. GLR MEMORANDUM OPINION
Case 1:17-cv-01253-GLR Document 46 Filed 03/22/19 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND BLUE WATER BALTIMORE, INC., et al., : Plaintiffs, : v. : Civil Action No.
More informationCase 2:10-cv JES-SPC Document 100 Filed 04/06/11 Page 1 of 28 PageID 1673
Case 2:10-cv-00106-JES-SPC Document 100 Filed 04/06/11 Page 1 of 28 PageID 1673 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION CONSERVANCY OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA; SIERRA CLUB;
More information