COVER SHEET for PLAINTIFFS REPLY BRIEF FILED FEBRUARY 13, 2012 IN THE PACIFIC DAWN CASE
|
|
- Jeremy Floyd
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Agenda Item F.1.d Supplemental Public Comment 2 March 2012 COVER SHEET for PLAINTIFFS REPLY BRIEF FILED FEBRUARY 13, 2012 IN THE PACIFIC DAWN CASE This supplemental public comment is provided in its entirety on the Council website under the March Briefing Book ( briefing-book/#march2012). The table below lists the parts of the submission provided by the plaintiffs and identifies which have been printed for display in this supplemental public comment. Exhibit Cover Letter of February 14, 2012 from Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP 1 page Plaintiffs Reply in Support of Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Request for Relief 9 pages Exhibit 1: Declaration of Pierre Marchand, Jr. in Support of Plaintiffs Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Request for Relief 3 pages Exhibit 2: Natural Resources Defense Council, et al v. Gary Locke, et al -- Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Parties Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment 49 pages Exhibit 3: Order of Remedy (NRDC v. Gary Locke) 3 pages Exhibit 4: 212 th Session of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Proposed March Council Meeting Agenda) 9 pages Exhibit 5: Council Operating Procedure 1 8 pages Exhibit 6: National Marine Fisheries Service Policy Guidelines for Use of Emergency Rules 6 pages Exhibit 7: Federal Register/Vol. 76, No.91/Wednesday, May 11, 2011 (Final Rule for groundfish harvest specifications and management measures) 56 pages [Proposed] Order on Remedy [Alternative 1] 2 pages [Proposed] Order on Remedy [Alternative 2] 2 pages Hardcopy Provided Yes Yes Yes Only pages 1-3. Yes Yes; however, it is contained in Agenda Item A.4 No Yes Only Pages 1-3. Yes Yes PFMC 02/22/12 Z:\!PFMC\MEETING\2012\March\Groundfish\F1d_SuppPubCom2_CoverSheet_Plaintiffs Reply_Feb13_PacDawn.doc
2
3 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58 Filed02/13/12 Page1 of 9 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP James P. Walsh (CA State bar No ) Gwen Fanger (CA State bar No ) DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California Telephone: (415) Facsimile: (415) budwalsh@dwt.com gwenfanger@dwt.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs PACIFIC DAWN LLC, CHELLISSA LLC, JAMES and SANDRA SCHONES, DA YANG SEAFOOD INC. and JESSIE S ILWACO FISH COMPANY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION PACIFIC DAWN LLC, CHELLISSA LLC, JAMES AND SANDRA SCHONES, DA YANG SEAFOOD INC., and JESSIE S ILWACO FISH COMPANY, v. Plaintiffs, JOHN BRYSON 1, Secretary of Commerce, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, and NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV TEH PLAINTIFFS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR RELIEF The only rational and fair way for defendants John Bryson, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ) and National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS ) (collectively, defendants ) to comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ( MSA ) and the Court s summary judgment order ( MSJ Order ) is to base the individual fishing quota ( IFQ ) allocations for the Pacific whiting fishery (the IFQ Regulations) on all relevant (i.e., historical and current) fishing history. Defendants, however, are reluctant to do this in a timely manner, which exemplifies their intent to defy the MSJ Order. By leaving the existing regulations in place for the next two years (per defendants estimation), defendants will be making ongoing allocations under regulations that the Court has already deemed a violation of the 1 John Bryson is substituted for defendant Gary Locke pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 25(d). -1- PLAINTIFFS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MEM. IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR RELIF DWT v Case No.CV TEH
4 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58 Filed02/13/12 Page2 of 9 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP MSA. Thus, plaintiffs request relief directing defendants to act by the start of the Pacific whiting fishing season on May 15 or to suspend the IFQ Regulations pending review by defendants. I. ARGUMENT Plaintiffs only seek to have the IFQ Regulations include the recent fishing history years as ordered by the Court. This is a simple allocation issue among Pacific whiting fishery participants that can be revised in a timely manner. There is no other conservation or management issue here; nevertheless, defendants are reluctant to take action to timely comply with the MSA and the MSJ Order. On February 8, 2012, plaintiffs and their counsel met with defendants, including Will Stelle, Northwest Region Administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service at NOAA s offices in Seattle, Washington. Declaration of Pierre Marchand in Support of Plaintiffs Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Request for Relief, dated February 9, 2012 ( Marchand Decl. ) at 3. 2 At the meeting, plaintiffs presented their recommendations regarding the revision of the IFQ allocations for the 2012 Pacific whiting season in light of the MSJ Order and defendants failure to include current fishing history for processors and harvesters. Id. The agency informed plaintiffs that would take two years to revise the IFQ allocations to comply with the Court s order. The agency suggested that it wanted to leave the existing allocations in place while they revised the IFQ allocations. Id. Contrary to defendants position, it is feasible for the IFQ Regulations to be revised in time for the start of the Pacific whiting fishing season on May 15, Defendants proposed timetable is irrational and incorrect. This Court has already found that the IFQ Regulations are unlawful under the MSA. Nevertheless, under defendants two year timetable, they would continue to make illegal allocations under the existing IFQ Regulations for the next two years to the plaintiffs detriment while the quotas are recalculated to include current fishing history consistent with the MSA. Leaving the existing allocations in place will cause economic harm to plaintiffs and therefore a remedy that either compels defendants to take timely action or suspends the IFQ 2 A copy of the Marchand Decl. is attached hereto as Exhibit PLAINTIFFS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MEM. IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR RELIEF DWT v Case No.CV TEH
5 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58 Filed02/13/12 Page3 of Regulations pending their revision is necessary. Defendants reticence to move quickly to revise the IFQ Regulations signifies their intent to defy the Court s MSJ Order and leave the existing IFQ Regulations in place for the next two years, during which time they will continue to make illegal allocations. The ongoing implementation of unlawful allocations contravenes the public interest. Thus, plaintiffs now propose two alternative remedies that would avoid the ongoing, 6 unlawful allocation of Pacific whiting quota under the existing regulations. 3 Under Alternative DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP , the Court would suspend the existing IFQ Regulations while defendants review and revise the quotas to include all current fishing history. Under Alternative 2, the Court would remand the IFQ Regulations to defendants to revise by May 15, 2012, in time for the start of the Pacific whiting season. The Court, however, would retain jurisdiction over the matter and require regular reports from defendants on their efforts to comply with the remedy order under either alternative. A. Plaintiffs Propose that the Court Suspend the IFQ Regulations Pending Defendants Review to Avoid Unlawful Allocations for the Next Two Years (Alternative 1). Plaintiffs contend that defendants have misrepresented the length of time it should take to review and revise the IFQ Regulations. Assuming arguendo, that it would take up to two years to revise the regulations, the existing IFQ Regulations should be suspended during this time. Specifically, plaintiffs propose that the Court: 1. Direct defendants to suspend the IFQ Regulations for the mothership and shoreside sectors of the Pacific whiting fishery and make no allocations based on the existing IFQ Regulations to any entity operating in those sectors until further order of this Court; and 2. Order that the existing IFQ Regulations with respect to IFQ allocations to the mothership and shoreside sectors of the Pacific whiting fishery shall remain suspended pending the implementation of revised, final IFQ Regulations for Pacific 3 When plaintiffs filed their Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Order Request for Relief ( Supp. Brief ), they believed in good faith that defendants would use their best efforts to revise the IFQ Regulations in a timely manner. However, based on defendants supplement brief on remedy and conversations with them last week, it is apparent that a more stringent order is necessary and appropriate, which would require the vacatur of the IFQ Regulations if defendants fail to act by May 15. See e.g., Hall v. E.P.A., 273 F.3d 1146, 1161 (if the decision of the agency is not sustainable on the administrative record made, then the... decision must be vacated and the matter remanded for further consideration. ) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Thus, plaintiffs request that the proposed order on remedy that they submitted with their Supplemental Brief is withdrawn and the Court consider the two alternative proposed orders submitted with this Reply instead. -3- PLAINTIFFS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MEM. IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR RELIEF DWT v Case No.CV TEH
6 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58 Filed02/13/12 Page4 of 9 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP whiting that are consistent with the MSA and the MSJ Order; provided, however, that all other fishery management measures for the Pacific whiting fishery that have been issued in accordance with the MSA will remain in effect during this time. Under this alternative, defendants would cease any further unlawful IFQ allocations, while they revised the regulations. 4 All other fishery management measures would remain in place. The fishery would still operate under the restrictive quotas for bycatch that are in place under the existing regulations. Thus, there would be no economic or conservation impact on the Pacific whiting fishery if the IFQ Regulations were suspended. The fishery would continue to operate for as long as it would take defendants to revise the IFQ Regulations. The Court has authority to shape an equitable remedy and therefore order defendants to suspend the IFQ Regulations pending review and revision. Plaintiffs here contend that (1) they are likely to suffer irreparable harm if defendants continue to make unlawful allocations under the existing IFQ Regulations; (2) the balance of equities tips in their favor; and (3) suspension of the IFQ Regulations pending review is in the public interest. See generally, M.R. v. Dreyfus, 663 F.3d 1100, (9 th Cir. 2011) (setting out test for injunctive relief and holding preliminary injunction justified where Department of Social and Health Services promulgated regulations that would reduce hours of covered in-home personal care services.) First, Plaintiffs have already succeeded on the merits as to the legality of the IFQ Regulations under the MSA. Second, defendants have expressed their intent to continue to leave the existing regulations in place for the next two years while they revise the IFQ allocations. During this time, they would continue to make allocations that would not comply with the Court s order. Thus, plaintiffs would likely suffer irreparable harm to their businesses by continuing to receive an unfair allocation of their quota share than they are otherwise entitled to under a standard that includes all recent fishing history. See Marchand Decl. at 4 (Exh. 1). Third, the only fair and rational way to allocate Pacific whiting quota is to include all fishing history so that one group of fishermen does not receive an unfair advantage over another while defendants revise the rules to comply with the law. Lastly, it is in the public interest for the IFQ Regulations to be suspended 4 Plaintiffs recently contacted defendants to offer this alternative as a remedy; however, defendants were not receptive to the idea. -4- PLAINTIFFS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MEM. IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR RELIEF DWT v Case No.CV TEH
7 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58 Filed02/13/12 Page5 of pending review by defendants to avoid unlawful allocations of quota share for Pacific whiting for, as defendants claim, the next two years while they recalculate the quota shares. An order with instructions to defendants is appropriate. In fact, courts have taken similar action in comparable circumstances involving NMFS. In NRDC v. Locke, C (N.D. Cal. 2010) (Docket No. 340, April 23, 2010, the NRDC MSJ Order ), the Natural Resources Defense Council sued NMFS and NOAA for violations of the MSA related to fishing specifications for certain groundfish species. The Court held that the specifications violated the MSA and ordered NMFS to publish new specifications in light of the Court s ruling within one 9 year of the remedy order. See NRDC MSJ Order at The Court vacated the specifications but DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP ordered that prior specifications to be reinstated while NMFS established new specifications. See NRDC Order on Remedy at 4. (Docket No. 342, April 29, 2010, NRDC Remedy Order ). 6 Thus, the fishery management was returned to the status quo measures in effect before the unlawful specifications were implemented. A similar order is requested and appropriate here PLAINTIFFS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MEM. IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR RELIEF DWT v Because the 2011 IFQ Regulations were a new program, a return to the status quo would simply mean that the Court suspend the IFQ Regulations for the mothership and shoreside sectors but leave all other fishery management measures that were in effect prior to the IFQ program. If, as defendants claim, it will take up to two years to recalculate the IFQ shares, then no further allocations should be made until defendants are able to comply with the MSA and the MSJ Order. B. Plaintiffs Propose that Defendants be Ordered to Review and Revise the IFQ Regulations by the Start of the 2012 Pacific Whiting Season (Alterative 2). Defendants have misled the Court regarding their ability to reconsider the IFQ Regulations in time for the start of the 2012 Pacific whiting season. Defendants assert that the season starts as 5 A copy of the NRDC MSJ Order is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 6 A copy of the NRDC Remedy Order is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 7 North Carolina Fisheries is distinguishable and defendants rely on dicta to support their argument that the Court should not impose a remedial order. The focus in that case was not about the timing required for defendants to comply with an order, which is all that plaintiffs seek here. Rather, the Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and did not rule on the merits of the order. North Carolina Fisheries Ass n v. Gutierrez, 550 F.3d 16, 21 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The Court in NRDC was also not swayed by the government s same argument that they use here. See NRDC MSJ Order at 48. Case No.CV TEH
8 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58 Filed02/13/12 Page6 of 9 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP early as April; however, the statutory start of the Pacific whiting season starts on May 15 for harvesters and processors in the mothership sector. 50 C.F.R (b)(1)(iii)(B). Revising the IFQ Regulations in time for the start of the Pacific whiting season is entirely feasible. Thus, plaintiffs propose as a second alternative an order that requires defendants to remand and revise by May 15, 2012 and if they fail to do so, the IFQ Regulations will be vacated. Specifically, the order would require that: 1. The IFQ Regulations are remanded to NMFS for reconsideration and revision based on current and historical harvest for harvesters and processors for Pacific whiting within the meaning of 16 U.S.C. 1853a(c)(5)(A)(i) and consistent with the MSA and the MSJ Order; 2. Defendants use their best efforts and all available authority, including taking emergency action and interim measures pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1855(c) as appropriate, to implement revised, final IFQ Regulations for the 2012 Pacific whiting season by May 15, 2012; and 3. The existing IFQ Regulations remain in effect pending the implementation of revised, final IFQ Regulations for the 2012 Pacific whiting; provided, however, that if Defendants fail to implement revised IFQ Regulations for the 2012 Pacific whiting season by May 15, 2012, the existing IFQ Regulations will be vacated. Defendants claim that they cannot act by May 15 is disingenuous. First, defendants glossed over the fact that the earliest of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (the Council ) meetings at which the Pacific whiting quotas can be addressed is in March and not April. (Defs. Brief at 6:14-16); see Proposed March 2012 Council Meeting Agenda at p. 3 (Part F.1). 8 In fact, the Council has put [p]lanning and necessary actions for the Pacific whiting fishing season, including potential impacts from the Pacific Dawn litigation on its agenda for the March 2-7, 2012 meeting. See Exh. 4 at p. 3 (Item F.1). Moreover, public comments are accepted up to the week before the Council meeting to be distributed at the meeting and to give the Council sufficient time to consider all positions. See Council Operating Procedure (revised 9/12/08) at p Further, defendants implemented the 2011 IFQ Regulations on an abbreviated timetable, which shows that they can move quickly when necessary. On April 5, 2011, NMFS issued a 8 A copy of the Council s proposed agenda is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. 9 A copy of the Council Operating Procedure is attached hereto as Exhibit PLAINTIFFS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MEM. IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR RELIEF DWT v Case No.CV TEH
9 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58 Filed02/13/12 Page7 of 9 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP proposed rule for Pacific whiting and accepted comments until April 19, Fed. Reg (April 5, 2011) (see Exhibit 2 to Plaintiff s Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Request for Relief Supp. Brief ). NMFS then published the final rule weeks later on May 19, 2011 made applicable to May Fed. Reg (May 19, 2011) (see Exhibit 3 to Supp. Brief). Thus, under the existing timetable, it is possible for defendants to review and revise the IFQ Regulations to comply with the MSJ Order by the start of the 2012 Pacific whiting season. Second, defendants are also vested with authority to take emergency and interim action, which would allow them to move quickly to implement the revised IFQ Allocations that include all recent fishing history. If the Secretary finds that an emergency exists or that interim measures are needed to reduce overfishing for any fishery, he may promulgate emergency regulations or interim measures necessary to address the emergency or overfishing, without regard to whether a fishery management plan exists for such fishery. 16 U.S.C. 1855(c). NMFS Policy Guidelines for the Use of Emergency Rules describe the criteria for implementing emergency authority. 10 NMFS defines an emergency situation as one that [r]esults from recent, unforeseen events or recently discovered circumstances; [p]resents serious management problems in the fishery; and [c]an be addressed through emergency regulations for which the immediate benefits outweigh the value of advance notice, public comment, and deliberative consideration of the impacts on participants to the same extent as would be expected under the normal rulemaking process. Id. at p. 2. An important justification for taking emergency action is economic to prevent significant direct economic loss or preserve a significant economic opportunity that otherwise might be foregone. Id. An economic justification surely exists for defendants to take emergency action to comply with the MSA and the Court s order. When the IFQs are revised to include all recent fishing history, the allocations will be made fairly and without giving one group of participants an unfair advantage over another. Whiting fishermen who have consistently participated in the whiting fishery with a reasonably consistent level of fishing effort during the initial years of A copy of National Marine Fisheries Service Instruction , Policy Guidelines for the use of Emergency Rules, is attached hereto as Exhibit PLAINTIFFS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MEM. IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR RELIEF DWT v Case No.CV TEH
10 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58 Filed02/13/12 Page8 of 9 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP and the recent period of , will maintain their IFQ quota share with little or no change. Those who had strong participation or whiting landings in the initial period of but have weak history or no history in the recent period of will experience a reduction in their IFQ quota share. Those who have a stronger history of landings during the recent period of due to changes in whiting distribution, changes in by-catch management or changes in community participation in the fishery, including markets at shoreside processing plants, will experience an increase in their IFQ quota share. However, until this happens, certain fishery participants who received a quota share based on the unlawful allocations will continue to be unfairly affected until the regulations are revised to include all recent fishing history. If the agency leaves the existing allocations in place pending their review for the next two years, these fishermen will be harmed. Marchand Decl. at 4 (Exh. 1). Under the existing allocations, the quota share for these fishermen is lower than what they would be entitled to if the agency revised the allocations to comply with the law. Fishermen who participated most actively and recently in the fishery, however, would have have a higher initial allocation of IFQ if the current fishing history were taken into account. Thus, by leaving the existing allocations in place, these fishermen will lose business because of the failure of the agency to timely revise the allocations to comply with the law. Waiting two years for the revised allocations would therefore mean another two years of a lower quota share, which would have a negative financial impact on certain businesses. Id. Leaving the existing allocations in place for the next two years will also have an unfair and disproportionate effect across participants in the Pacific whiting fishery. Under the agency s timetable, the allocations for certain other Pacific whiting fishery participants will continue to be higher than what they would receive if the current fishing history years were included in the allocations. It will therefore benefit some participants, who will continue to receive a higher allocation under the existing, illegal program than they would be entitled to if all current fishing history was included in the allocations. It will at the same time, harm others who will then continue to receive a lower allocation by leaving the illegal program in place. Thus, the agency s unnecessary delay in revising the allocations to include all current fishing history will cause -8- PLAINTIFFS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MEM. IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR RELIEF DWT v Case No.CV TEH
11 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58 Filed02/13/12 Page9 of financial harm to fishing companies who receive a lower than their fair share of the quota. Marchand Decl. at 5 (Exh. 1). Third, defendants have used this emergency authority in similar circumstances to revise regulations to comply with a court order. In the NRDC case described above, NMFS took emergency action to establish new specifications for certain overfished species to meet a one year deadline set by the court. See 76 Fed. Reg at (May 11, 2011) (describing 7 justification for provisions implemented through emergency rule). 11 The Court in the NRDC case DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP ordered defendants to comply with its order within one year, finding the Agency has been able to meet a one-year deadline before and should be able to now. See NRDC MSJ Order at 48 (Exh. 2); NRDC Remedy Order at 5 (Exh. 3). There is no reason that defendants could not take emergency action in this case to comply with the MSJ Order. It defies logic why they insist on an unnecessary delay that will do nothing but cause ongoing unlawful allocations to be made in defiance of the Court s order. II. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant the above-described relief to remedy the violations of law while defendants take legally required corrective action. DATED: February 13, Respectfully submitted, /s/ James P. Walsh James P. Walsh DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Pacific Dawn LLC, Chellissa LLC, James and Sandra Schones, Da Yang Seafood, Inc. and Jessie s Ilwaco Fish Company 11 A copy of 76 Fed. Reg (May 11, 2011) is attached hereto as Exhibit PLAINTIFFS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MEM. IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR RELIEF DWT v Case No.CV TEH
12 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-1 Filed02/13/12 Page1 of 4
13 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-1 Filed02/13/12 Page2 of 4
14 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-1 Filed02/13/12 Page3 of 4
15 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-1 Filed02/13/12 Page4 of 4
16 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page1 of 50
17 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page2 of 50
18 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page3 of 50
19 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page4 of 50
20 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page5 of 50
21 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page6 of 50
22 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page7 of 50
23 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page8 of 50
24 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page9 of 50
25 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page10 of 50
26 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page11 of 50
27 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page12 of 50
28 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page13 of 50
29 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page14 of 50
30 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page15 of 50
31 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page16 of 50
32 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page17 of 50
33 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page18 of 50
34 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page19 of 50
35 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page20 of 50
36 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page21 of 50
37 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page22 of 50
38 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page23 of 50
39 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page24 of 50
40 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page25 of 50
41 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page26 of 50
42 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page27 of 50
43 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page28 of 50
44 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page29 of 50
45 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page30 of 50
46 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page31 of 50
47 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page32 of 50
48 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page33 of 50
49 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page34 of 50
50 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page35 of 50
51 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page36 of 50
52 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page37 of 50
53 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page38 of 50
54 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page39 of 50
55 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page40 of 50
56 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page41 of 50
57 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page42 of 50
58 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page43 of 50
59 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page44 of 50
60 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page45 of 50
61 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page46 of 50
62 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page47 of 50
63 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page48 of 50
64 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page49 of 50
65 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-2 Filed02/13/12 Page50 of 50
66 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-3 Filed02/13/12 Page1 of 4
67 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-3 Filed02/13/12 Page2 of 4
68 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-3 Filed02/13/12 Page3 of 4
69 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-3 Filed02/13/12 Page4 of 4
70 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-4 Filed02/13/12 Page1 of 10
71 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-4 Filed02/13/12 Page2 of 10
72 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-4 Filed02/13/12 Page3 of 10
73 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-4 Filed02/13/12 Page4 of 10
74 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-4 Filed02/13/12 Page5 of 10
75 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-4 Filed02/13/12 Page6 of 10
76 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-4 Filed02/13/12 Page7 of 10
77 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-4 Filed02/13/12 Page8 of 10
78 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-4 Filed02/13/12 Page9 of 10
79 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-4 Filed02/13/12 Page10 of 10
80 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-5 Filed02/13/12 Page1 of 9
81 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-5 Filed02/13/12 Page2 of 9
82 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-5 Filed02/13/12 Page3 of 9
83 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-5 Filed02/13/12 Page4 of 9
84 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-5 Filed02/13/12 Page5 of 9
85 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-5 Filed02/13/12 Page6 of 9
86 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-5 Filed02/13/12 Page7 of 9
87 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-5 Filed02/13/12 Page8 of 9
88 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-5 Filed02/13/12 Page9 of 9
89 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-6 Filed02/13/12 Page1 of 6
90 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-6 Filed02/13/12 Page2 of 6
91 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-6 Filed02/13/12 Page3 of 6
92 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-6 Filed02/13/12 Page4 of 6
93 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-6 Filed02/13/12 Page5 of 6
94 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-6 Filed02/13/12 Page6 of 6
95 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page1 of 56
96 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page2 of 56
97 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page3 of 56
98 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page4 of 56
99 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page5 of 56
100 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page6 of 56
101 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page7 of 56
102 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page8 of 56
103 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page9 of 56
104 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page10 of 56
105 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page11 of 56
106 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page12 of 56
107 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page13 of 56
108 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page14 of 56
109 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page15 of 56
110 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page16 of 56
111 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page17 of 56
112 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page18 of 56
113 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page19 of 56
114 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page20 of 56
115 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page21 of 56
116 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page22 of 56
117 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page23 of 56
118 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page24 of 56
119 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page25 of 56
120 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page26 of 56
121 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page27 of 56
122 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page28 of 56
123 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page29 of 56
124 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page30 of 56
125 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page31 of 56
126 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page32 of 56
127 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page33 of 56
128 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page34 of 56
129 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page35 of 56
130 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page36 of 56
131 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page37 of 56
132 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page38 of 56
133 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page39 of 56
134 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page40 of 56
135 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page41 of 56
136 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page42 of 56
137 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page43 of 56
138 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page44 of 56
139 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page45 of 56
140 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page46 of 56
141 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page47 of 56
142 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page48 of 56
143 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page49 of 56
144 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page50 of 56
145 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page51 of 56
146 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page52 of 56
147 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page53 of 56
148 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page54 of 56
149 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page55 of 56
150 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-7 Filed02/13/12 Page56 of 56
151 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-8 Filed02/13/12 Page1 of James P. Walsh (CA State bar No ) Gwen Fanger (CA State bar No ) DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California Telephone: (415) Facsimile: (415) budwalsh@dwt.com gwenfanger@dwt.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs PACIFIC DAWN LLC, CHELLISSA LLC, JAMES and SANDRA SCHONES, DA YANG SEAFOOD INC. and JESSIE S ILWACO FISH COMPANY 8 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION PACIFIC DAWN LLC, CHELLISSA LLC, JAMES AND SANDRA SCHONES, DA YANG SEAFOOD INC., and JESSIE S ILWACO FISH COMPANY, v. Plaintiffs, JOHN BRYSON 1, Secretary of Commerce, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, and NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV TEH [PROPOSED] ORDER ON REMEDY [ALTERNATIVE 1 ] After consideration of the parties cross-motions for summary judgment, supplemental briefings on remedy, and the record in this case, and for the reasons set forth in its December 22, 2011 Order (Docket No. 49) (the MSJ Order ), the Court hereby declares and orders: 1. Defendants John Bryson, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ) and National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS ) (collectively, Defendants ) violated the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act ( MSA ), 16 U.S.C. 1853a(c)(5)(A)(i), by failing to consider the fishing history beyond 2003 for harvesters and John Bryson is substituted for defendant Gary Locke pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 25(d). [AMENDED PROPOSED] ORDER ON REMEDY DWT v Case No.CV TEH
152 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-8 Filed02/13/12 Page2 of 2 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP for processors in issuing their initial 2011 individual fishing quotas ( IFQs ) as part of the implementing regulations for the fishery management plan for Pacific Whiting levels for 2011 (the IFQ Regulations ). 2. Defendants are directed to SUSPEND the IFQ Regulations for the mothership and shoreside sectors of the Pacific whiting fishery and make no allocations based on the existing IFQ Regulations to any entity operating in those sectors until further order of this Court. 3. The existing IFQ Regulations with respect to IFQ allocations to the mothership and shoreside sectors of the Pacific whiting fishery shall remain suspended pending the implementation of revised, final IFQ Regulations for Pacific whiting that are consistent with the MSA and the MSJ Order; provided, however, that all other fishery management measures for the Pacific whiting fishery that have been issued in accordance with the MSA will remain in effect during this time. 4. The Court will retain jurisdiction over Defendants actions on remand. 5. Defendants will report regularly to this Court on their progress to meet the requirements of this Order on Remedy. Within three months of the date of issuance of this Order on Remedy, and every three months after that until the adoption of revised, final IFQ Regulations, Defendants will submit a report to the Court regarding their efforts to comply with the Order on Remedy. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [AMENDED PROPOSED] ORDER ON REMEDY DWT v Case No.CV TEH
153 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-9 Filed02/13/12 Page1 of James P. Walsh (CA State bar No ) Gwen Fanger (CA State bar No ) DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California Telephone: (415) Facsimile: (415) budwalsh@dwt.com gwenfanger@dwt.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs PACIFIC DAWN LLC, CHELLISSA LLC, JAMES and SANDRA SCHONES, DA YANG SEAFOOD INC. and JESSIE S ILWACO FISH COMPANY 8 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION PACIFIC DAWN LLC, CHELLISSA LLC, JAMES AND SANDRA SCHONES, DA YANG SEAFOOD INC., and JESSIE S ILWACO FISH COMPANY, v. Plaintiffs, JOHN BRYSON 1, Secretary of Commerce, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, and NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV TEH [PROPOSED] ORDER ON REMEDY [ALTERNATIVE 2] After consideration of the parties cross-motions for summary judgment, supplemental briefings on remedy, and the record in this case, and for the reasons set forth in its December 22, 2011 Order (Docket No. 49) (the MSJ Order ), the Court hereby declares and orders: 1. Defendants John Bryson, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ) and National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS ) (collectively, Defendants ) violated the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act ( MSA ), 16 U.S.C. 1853a(c)(5)(A)(i), by failing to consider the fishing history beyond 2003 for harvesters and John Bryson is substituted for defendant Gary Locke pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 25(d). [PROPOSED] ORDER ON REMEDY DWT v Case No.CV TEH
154 Case3:10-cv TEH Document58-9 Filed02/13/12 Page2 of 2 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP for processors in issuing their initial 2011 individual fishing quotas ( IFQs ) as part of the implementing regulations for the fishery management plan for Pacific Whiting levels for 2011 (the IFQ Regulations ). 2. The IFQ Regulations are hereby REMANDED to NMFS for reconsideration and revision based on current and historical harvest for harvesters and processors for Pacific whiting within the meaning of 16 U.S.C. 1853a(c)(5)(A)(i) and consistent with the MSA and the MSJ Order. 3. Defendants shall use their best efforts and all available authority, including taking emergency action and interim measures pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1855(c) as appropriate, to implement revised, final IFQ Regulations for the 2012 Pacific whiting season by May 15, The existing IFQ Regulations shall remain in effect pending the implementation of revised, final IFQ Regulations for the 2012 Pacific whiting season; provided, however, that if Defendants fail to implement revised IFQ Regulations for the 2012 Pacific whiting season by May 15, 2012, the existing IFQ Regulations will be vacated. 5. The Court will retain jurisdiction over Defendants actions on remand. 6. Defendants will report regularly to this Court on their progress to meet the requirements of this Order on Remedy. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [PROPOSED] ORDER ON REMEDY DWT v Case No.CV TEH
Case 1:15-cv NJV Document 1 Filed 12/04/15 Page 1 of 18
Case :-cv-0-njv Document Filed /0/ Page of EDWARD C. DUCKERS (SB #) ed.duckers@stoel.com Three Embarcadero Center, Suite San Francisco, CA Telephone: () -00 Facsimile: () -0 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Sea
More informationCase 5:16-cv LHK Document 79 Filed 01/18/19 Page 1 of 13
Case :-cv-0-lhk Document Filed 0// Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION OCEANA, INC., Plaintiff, v. WILBUR ROSS, et al., Defendants. Case No. -CV-0-LHK
More 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 2:16-cv BJR Document 34 Filed 08/03/16 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Case :-cv-00-bjr Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 0 PUGET SOUNDKEEPER ALLIANCE, CENTER FOR JUSTICE, RE SOURCES FOR SUSTAINABLE
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 informationCase 2:09-sp RSM Document 285 Filed 01/26/15 Page 1 of 6
Case :0-sp-0000-RSM Document Filed 0// Page of The Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Civil No. C0-
More informationCase 2:07-cv RSL Document 50 Filed 05/21/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Case :0-cv-0-RSL Document 0 Filed 0 Page of 0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE NW Coalition for Alternatives to ) Pesticides, et al. ) ) NO. 0--RSL Plaintiffs, )
More informationPRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING
1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 2 --------------------------X CHARTER OPERATORS OF Docket No. CA 11-664 3 ALASKA, ET AL, Plaintiffs, 4 v. Washington, D.C. 5 April 26, 2011
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TURTLE ISLAND RESTORATION NETWORK; CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY; KAHEA: THE HAWAIIAN- ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
More informationUnited States District Court
Case:-cv-0-PJH Document Filed0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, et al., Plaintiffs, No. C - PJH v. ORDER MARGARET A. HAMBURG, M.D., 0 Defendant.
More informationMidwater Trawlers Co-Operative v. Department Of Commerce: A Troublesome Dichotomy Of Science And Policy
Ocean and Coastal Law Journal Volume 8 Number 1 Article 6 2002 Midwater Trawlers Co-Operative v. Department Of Commerce: A Troublesome Dichotomy Of Science And Policy Sarah McCarthy University of Maine
More informationCase 2:07-cv RSL Document 51 Filed 11/09/17 Page 1 of 12
Case :0-cv-0-RSL Document Filed /0/ Page of The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik 0 0 DKT. 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Northwest Center for Alternatives ) NO. 0-cv--RSL
More informationCase 2:17-cv MJP Document 217 Filed 03/23/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE. Defendants.
Case :-cv-0-mjp Document Filed 0// Page of The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 RYAN KARNOSKI, et al., v. Plaintiffs, No. :-cv--mjp DEFENDANTS
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 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 informationCase 1:09-cv RWR Document 17 Filed 01/05/10 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:09-cv-02014-RWR Document 17 Filed 01/05/10 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff, JACQUES
More informationCase 1:11-cv PLF Document 54 Filed 01/09/12 Page 1 of 43 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:11-cv-01278-PLF Document 54 Filed 01/09/12 Page 1 of 43 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) SIERRA CLUB, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 11-1278 (PLF) ) LISA P.
More informationCase 2:11-cv FMO-SS Document 256 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:11349
Case :-cv-00-fmo-ss Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 JEFFREY H. WOOD Acting Assistant Attorney General Environment and Natural Resources Division MARK SABATH E-mail: mark.sabath@usdoj.gov Massachusetts
More informationCase 1:18-cv LY Document 32-2 Filed 06/25/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
Case 1:18-cv-00295-LY Document 32-2 Filed 06/25/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION COMMUNITY FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, LTD., and CONSUMER
More 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 informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. MEMORANDUM OPINION (June 14, 2016)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SIERRA CLUB, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and GINA McCARTHY, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :-cv-0-tjh-kk Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: Matthew Borden, Esq. (SBN: borden@braunhagey.com Amit Rana, Esq. (SBN: rana@braunhagey.com BRAUNHAGEY & BORDEN LLP Sansome Street, Second Floor
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :0-cv-000-WQH-KSC Document Filed // Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Receiver for LA JOLLA BANK, FSB, Plaintiff, vs.
More informationCase 1:07-cv RMU Document 71-2 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 1 of 6. ANDA , Amlodipine Besylate Tablets, 2.5 mg, 5 mg, and 10 mg.
Case 1:07-cv-00579-RMU Document 71-2 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 1 of 6 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES ANDA 76-719, Amlodipine Besylate Tablets, 2.5 mg, 5 mg, and 10 mg. SENT BY FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
More informationCase 1:17-cv JDB Document 86 Filed 08/17/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:17-cv-02325-JDB Document 86 Filed 08/17/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
More informationCase 9:17-cv DLC Document 251 Filed 08/30/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MONTANA, MISSOULA DIVISION
Case 9:17-cv-00089-DLC Document 251 Filed 08/30/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MONTANA, MISSOULA DIVISION CROW INDIAN TRIBE, ET AL., v. Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
More informationCase3:13-cv CRB Document25 Filed08/15/13 Page1 of 5
Case:-cv-0-CRB Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 SCOTT A. KRONLAND (SBN ) JONATHAN WEISSGLASS (SBN 00) ERIC P. BROWN (SBN ) Altshuler Berzon LLP Post Street, Suite 00 San Francisco, CA 0 Tel: () - Fax: ()
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ~ V ~= o '~ ~ n N a~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, et al., v. Plaintiffs, ~ MARGARET A. HAMBURG, M.D., Defendant. J No. C - PJH -~. Before
More informationCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATE OF ALASKA, ) 1031 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 200 ) Anchorage, AK 99501 ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) JANE LUBCHENCO, in her official capacity ) as
More informationCase 2:16-cv SWS Document 195 Filed 02/28/18 Page 1 of 10. James Kaste, Wyo. Bar No Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General
Case 2:16-cv-00285-SWS Document 195 Filed 02/28/18 Page 1 of 10 James Kaste, Wyo. Bar No. 6-3244 Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General Deputy Attorney General Melissa Schlichting, Deputy Attorney General
More informationCase 1:16-cv JDB Document 55 Filed 12/20/17 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:16-cv-02113-JDB Document 55 Filed 12/20/17 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AARP, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 16-2113 (JDB) UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
More informationCase 2:12-cv JFC Document 152 Filed 07/05/18 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:12-cv-00207-JFC Document 152 Filed 07/05/18 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA GENEVA COLLEGE; WAYNE L. HEPLER; THE SENECA HARDWOOD LUMBER COMPANY,
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 informationCase 1:16-cv JDB Document 56 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:16-cv-02113-JDB Document 56 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AARP, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Case No.
More informationCase 1:12-cv DLC-MHD Document 540 Filed 08/01/14 Page 1 of 9. Plaintiffs, Defendants.
Case 112-cv-03394-DLC-MHD Document 540 Filed 08/01/14 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------- IN RE ELECTRONIC BOOKS ANTITRUST LITIGATION
More informationCase 1:17-cv RDM Document 91 Filed 09/17/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:17-cv-01330-RDM Document 91 Filed 09/17/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MEAGHAN BAUER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ELISABETH DeVOS, Secretary, U.S. Department
More informationCase3:15-cv VC Document25 Filed06/19/15 Page1 of 8
Case3:15-cv-01723-VC Document25 Filed06/19/15 Page1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 MAYER BROWN LLP DALE J. GIALI (SBN 150382) dgiali@mayerbrown.com KERI E. BORDERS (SBN 194015) kborders@mayerbrown.com 350
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 informationCase 1:11-cv ABJ Document 60 Filed 03/02/12 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:11-cv-01629-ABJ Document 60 Filed 03/02/12 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 11-1629 (ABJ
More informationCase 6:15-cv AA Document 415 Filed 11/02/18 Page 1 of 12
Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 415 Filed 11/02/18 Page 1 of 12 JULIA A. OLSON (OR Bar 062230) JuliaAOlson@gmail.com Wild Earth Advocates 1216 Lincoln Street Eugene, OR 97401 Tel: (415) 786-4825 ANDREA
More informationBiological Opinions for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta: A Case Law Summary
Biological Opinions for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta: A Case Law Kristina Alexander Legislative Attorney January 23, 2012 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Congressional
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE 900 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE Washington, D.C. 20003, Plaintiff, v. Civ. No. NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
Case 1:17-cv-01597-CKK Document 97 Filed 03/23/18 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JANE DOE 1, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 17-cv-1597 (CKK) DONALD J. TRUMP,
More informationCase 3:16-cv CWR-LRA Document 25 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 9
Case 3:16-cv-00350-CWR-LRA Document 25 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION NYKOLAS ALFORD and STEPHEN THOMAS; and ACLU
More informationCase 3:11-cv HZ Document 75 Filed 08/07/13 Page 1 of 14
Case 3:11-cv-01358-HZ Document 75 Filed 08/07/13 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON GOLDEN TEMPLE OF OREGON, LLC an Oregon Limited Liability Company, v. Plaintiff,
More informationAGENCY: Office of the Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration, Department of
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 01/08/2018 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2017-28230, and on FDsys.gov Billing Code: 3510 DP P DEPARTMENT OF
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO. The parties hereby submit to Magistrate Judge Cousins the attached Joint
Case 3:01-cv-01351-TEH Document 2676 Filed 07/17/13 Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 PRISON LAW OFFICE DONALD SPECTR (83925) STEVEN FAMA (99641) ALISON HARDY (135966) SARA NORMAN (189536)
More informationCase 3:17-cv VC Document 48 Filed 09/29/17 Page 1 of 17
Case :-cv-00-vc Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Mark McKane, P.C. (SBN 0 Austin L. Klar (SBN California Street San Francisco, CA 0 Telephone: ( -00 Fax: ( -00 E-mail: mark.mckane@kirkland.com austin.klar@kirkland.com
More informationCase4:09-cv CW Document417 Filed12/01/11 Page1 of 5
Case:0-cv-0-CW Document Filed/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND DIVISION 0 0 DAVID OSTER, et al., v. Plaintiffs WILL LIGHTBOURNE, Director
More informationORAL ARGUMENT HELD DECEMBER 10, 2013 DECIDED APRIL 15, 2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #12-1100 Document #1579258 Filed: 10/21/2015 Page 1 of 8 ORAL ARGUMENT HELD DECEMBER 10, 2013 DECIDED APRIL 15, 2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
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 informationOperating Agreement. November 2013
Agenda Item G.2 Attachment 2 September 2016 Operating Agreement Among the Pacific Fishery Management Council; NOAA 1 Fisheries Service West Coast Regional Office; NOAA Fisheries Service Northwest Fisheries
More informationCase 1:13-cv RDM Document 60 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:13-cv-02007-RDM Document 60 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES ASSOCIATION OF REPTILE KEEPERS, INC., Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No (JEB) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
5/$, A7AAD.! DB@@
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 informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION
Case 3:15-cv-00162 Document 132 Filed in TXSD on 08/22/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION STATE OF TEXAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
More informationNotice of Motion and Motion to Consolidate Related Actions Against
Notice of Motion and Motion to Consolidate Related Actions Against Sagent Technology, Inc. for Violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof
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 1:11-cv GK Document 143 Filed 06/14/16 Page 1 of 37
Case 1:11-cv-00660-GK Document 143 Filed 06/14/16 Page 1 of 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MICHAEL s. FLAHERTY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 11-0660 (GK) PENNY
More informationCase 2:17-cv MJP Document 238 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 8
Case :-cv-0-mjp Document Filed 0/0/ Page of The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE RYAN KARNOSKI, et al., v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Plaintiffs,
More informationApril 12, Industry-Funded Monitoring (IFM) Omnibus Amendment
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL New England Fishery Management Council ATTN: Dr. John Quinn, Chairman 50 Water Street, Mill 2 Newburyport, MA 01950 E-mail: comments@nefmc.org Re: Industry-Funded Monitoring (IFM) Omnibus
More informationCase 3:16-cv EMC Document 311 Filed 02/12/18 Page 1 of 7
Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed 0// Page of JINA L. CHOI (N.Y. Bar No. ) JOHN S. YUN (Cal. Bar No. 0) yunj@sec.gov MARC D. KATZ (Cal. Bar No. ) katzma@sec.gov JESSICA W. CHAN (Cal. Bar No. ) chanjes@sec.gov
More informationCase 7:16-cv O Document 100 Filed 11/20/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1792
Case 7:16-cv-00054-O Document 100 Filed 11/20/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1792 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION STATE OF TEXAS et al., v. Plaintiffs,
More informationCase 5:16-cv LHK Document 61 Filed 01/18/18 Page 1 of 33
Case :-cv-0-lhk Document Filed 0// Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION OCEANA, INC., Plaintiff, v. WILBUR ROSS, et al., Defendants. ORDER RE: MOTIONS
More informationCase 2:12-cv JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 01/30/13 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-00-jam-ac Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 CACHIL DEHE BAND OF WINTUN INDIANS OF THE COLUSA INDIAN COMMUNITY, a federally recognized
More informationCase 0:16-cv WPD Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2017 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:16-cv-61975-WPD Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2017 Page 1 of 10 MIAMI WATERKEEPER, CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, INC., and DIVING EQUIPMENT AND MARKETING
More informationPACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION. Case 2:13-cv KJM-DAD Document 80 Filed 07/07/15 Page 1 of 3
Case :-cv-0-kjm-dad Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of M. REED HOPPER, Cal. Bar No. E-mail: mrh@pacificlegal.org ANTHONY L. FRANÇOIS, Cal. Bar No. 0 E-mail: alf@pacificlegal.org Pacific Legal Foundation Sacramento,
More informationORAL ARGUMENT HEARD ON SEPTEMBER 27, No and Consolidated Cases
USCA Case #15-1363 Document #1669991 Filed: 04/06/2017 Page 1 of 10 ORAL ARGUMENT HEARD ON SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 No. 15-1363 and Consolidated Cases IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
More informationNos and UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
Appellate Case: 18-8027 Document: 010110051889 Date Filed: 09/12/2018 Page: 1 Nos. 18-8027 and 18-8029 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT STATE OF WYOMING, et al., Petitioners - Appellees,
More informationORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #17-1014 Document #1668936 Filed: 03/31/2017 Page 1 of 10 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, ET
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NO. 1:15-CV TDS-JEP. Plaintiffs, Defendants.
Case 1:15-cv-00399-TDS-JEP Document 151 Filed 06/08/17 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NO. 1:15-CV-00399-TDS-JEP SANDRA LITTLE COVINGTON, et al.,
More informationCase 1:17-cv JEB Document 16 Filed 04/12/17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:17-cv-00406-JEB Document 16 Filed 04/12/17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MASSACHUSETTS LOBSTERMEN S ASSOCIATION; et al., v. Plaintiffs, WILBUR J.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
-KSC Turtle Island Restoration Network et al v. United States Department of Commerce et al Doc. 139 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII TURTLE ISLAND RESTORATION NETWORK; CENTER
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 informationCase 1:06-cv RBW Document 20 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:06-cv-01773-RBW Document 20 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELECTRONIC FRONTIER : FOUNDATION, : : Civil Action No. 06-1773 Plaintiff, : :
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 OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION
Ruben L. Iñiguez Assistant Federal Public Defender ruben_iniguez@fd.org Stephen R. Sady, OSB #81099 Chief Deputy Federal Public Defender steve_sady@fd.org 101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 1700 Portland, Oregon
More informationCase 3:68-cv KI Document 2589 Filed 03/11/11 Page 1 of 14 Page ID#: 3145
Case 3:68-cv-00513-KI Document 2589 Filed 03/11/11 Page 1 of 14 Page ID#: 3145 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION UNITED STATES, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. STATE OF OREGON,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Diskriter, Inc. v. Alecto Healthcare Services Ohio Valley LLC et al Doc. 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA DISKRITER, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, Plaintiff,
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 informationCase 1:11-cv BJR Document 66 Filed 11/14/14 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:11-cv-01414-BJR Document 66 Filed 11/14/14 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. PENNY PRITZKER, in
More informationCase 3:17-cv WHO Document 108 Filed 05/22/17 Page 1 of 8
Case :-cv-00-who Document 0 Filed 0// Page of 0 0 CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General BRIAN STRETCH United States Attorney JOHN R. TYLER Assistant Director STEPHEN J. BUCKINGHAM (Md. Bar)
More informationNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Resource Agency Procedures for Conditions and Prescriptions in Hydropower
3410-11-P 4310-79-P 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of the Secretary 7 CFR Part 1 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of the Secretary 43 CFR Part 45 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and
More informationmg Doc 5792 Filed 11/15/13 Entered 11/15/13 18:14:57 Main Document Pg 1 of 5
Pg 1 of 5 Hearing Date and Time: November 19, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. (Prevailing Eastern Time CURTIS, MALLET-PREVOST, COLT & MOSLE LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, New York 10178-0061 Telephone: (212 696-6000
More informationJON ELLINGSON ALCU of Montana P.O. Box 9138 Missoula, MT
Case 6:93-cv-00046-DWM-JCL Document 1534 Filed 03/02/17 Page 1 of 17 ERIC BALABAN National Prison Project of the ACLUF 915 15th Street, 7th Fl. Washington, DC 20005 202.393.4930 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #19-5042 Document #1779028 Filed: 03/24/2019 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT : DAMIEN GUEDUES, et al., : : No. 19-5042 Appellants : : Consolidated
More informationCase 1:18-cv DLF Document 12 Filed 02/27/18 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:18-cv-00253-DLF Document 12 Filed 02/27/18 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THE NAVAJO NATION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-00253-DLF )
More informationCase3:13-cv SI Document28 Filed09/25/13 Page1 of 5
Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0// Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 HARMEET DHILLON, v. DOES -0, Plaintiff, Defendants. / No. C - SI ORDER DENYING IN
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No (1:15-cv GBL-MSN)
Appeal: 16-1110 Doc: 20-1 Filed: 01/30/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 Total Pages:(1 of 52) FILED: January 30, 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1110 (1:15-cv-00675-GBL-MSN) NATIONAL COUNCIL
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA, ) Secretary of Labor, United States Department ) of Labor, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) STATE OF ALASKA, Department
More informationNos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
Appellate Case: 18-8029 Document: 01019987899 Date Filed: 05/07/2018 Page: 1 Nos. 18-8027, 18-8029 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT STATE OF WYOMING, et al., Petitioners-Appellees,
More informationSubject: Opinion on Whether Trinity River Record of Decision is a Rule
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548 May 14, 2001 The Honorable Doug Ose Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs Committee on Government
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Case 2:13-cv-00079-WKW-CSC Document 43 Filed 01/06/14 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION JANE DOE #1, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RICH HOBSON,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case Case:-cv-0-SBA :-cv-0-dms-bgs Document- Filed// Page of of 0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ALTERNATIVE COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE COOPERATIVE, INC. et al., vs. Plaintiffs,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO:
Gulf Fishermens Association et al v. National Marine Fisheries Service et al Doc. 94 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA GULF FISHERMENS ASSOCIATION ET AL. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO:
More informationAGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 05/10/2013 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2013-11149, and on FDsys.gov Billing Code: 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued April 20, 2017 Decided May 26, 2017 No. 16-5235 WASHINGTON ALLIANCE OF TECHNOLOGY WORKERS, APPELLANT v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
More informationCase 3:17-cv EDL Document 11 Filed 07/26/17 Page 1 of 21
Case :-cv-00-edl Document Filed 0// Page of XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California DAVID A. ZONANA Supervising Deputy Attorney General GEORGE TORGUN, State Bar No. 0 MARY S. THARIN, State Bar No.
More informationWoods et al v. Vector Marketing Corporation Doc. 276 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Woods et al v. Vector Marketing Corporation Doc. 276 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. (SBN 090058) 29229 Canwood
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 DEWAYNE JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, et al., Defendants. Case No. -cv-0-mmc ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND; VACATING
More information