FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Similar documents
Case 2:16-cv SWS Document 218 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:13-cv SC Document 39 Filed 01/09/14 Page 1 of 5

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DOTCONNECTAFRICA TRUST,

Case4:10-cv CW Document205 Filed11/02/12 Page1 of 6

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Petitioners, Real Parties in Interest.

Case3:08-cv MHP Document63 Filed12/15/10 Page1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Michael Saul (pro hac vice) Center for Biological Diversity 1536 Wynkoop Street, Suite 421

Appeal No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Bradley Berentson, et al. Brian Perryman,

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case 2:10-cv TSZ Document 138 Filed 10/01/13 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. Defendants/Appellants.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No [DC# CV MJJ] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. RUSSELL ALLEN NORDYKE; et al., Plaintiffs - Appellants,

Case 4:09-cv CW Document 579 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiffs, Defendants.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APP: AJllS--~---- PETITION FOR REVIEW. and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15( a), the Mozilla Corporation

Case 4:11-cv SBA Document 93 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 5

ORAL ARGUMENT PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED MARCH 31, No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiffs - Appellants, Defendants - Appellees.

Case4:11-cv PJH Document65 Filed08/31/12 Page1 of 8

Case: Document: 6 Filed: 11/03/2016 Pages: 6 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT DEFEENDANT-APPELLEE S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

ORAL ARGUMENT PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED MARCH 31, No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case 4:17-cv HSG Document 180 Filed 12/26/18 Page 1 of 3

Case 2:14-cv APG-VCF Document 107 Filed 02/26/16 Page 1 of 8

Case M:06-cv VRW Document 160 Filed 02/08/2007 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Case 1:14-cv Document 430 Filed in TXSD on 11/18/16 Page 1 of 6

ORAL ARGUMENT PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED MARCH 31, No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ReCEIVED FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCU CLERK

Case: , 10/18/2016, ID: , DktEntry: 57-1, Page 1 of 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case 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

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT CA **********

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPELAS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH CIRCUIT

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case: , 05/19/2016, ID: , DktEntry: 33-1, Page 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case 2:16-cv SWS Document 228 Filed 04/17/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF WYOMING

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Case3:06-md VRW Document738-5 Filed07/07/10 Page1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Case3:09-cv VRW Document369 Filed01/08/10 Page1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

Case 2:11-cv JEM Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2011 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION. CASE NO. 4:08-cv RH-WCS

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No John Teixeira; et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants,

Nos & IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. ROSALINA CUELLAR DE OSORIO; et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

US District Court for the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Prescott Division

Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. v. Funambol, Inc. Doc. 52

STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 05-CV-274-HA

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case3:14-cv Document1 Filed09/03/14 Page1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: , 08/14/2017, ID: , DktEntry: 46-1, Page 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

E-Filed Document Sep :10: CA Pages: 17 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO.

Appeal No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Case M:06-cv VRW Document 424 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 1 of 5

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case4:09-cv CW Document42 FUedi 0/07/09 Pagel of 9

Case 2:16-cv NDF Document 29 Filed 03/23/17 Page 1 of 9

Notice of Motion and Motion to Consolidate Related Actions Against

Case 1:17-cv ABJ Document 12 Filed 03/01/18 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case5:12-cv HRL Document9 Filed08/09/12 Page1 of 5

Case: , 12/29/2014, ID: , DktEntry: 20-1, Page 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

smb Doc 308 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 17:49:16 Main Document Pg 1 of 5

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Nos & IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. STEVE TRUNK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,

CASE ARGUED APRIL 21, 2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case 4:05-cv Y Document 86 Filed 04/30/07 Page 1 of 7 PageID 789 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No

Case: /16/2014 ID: DktEntry: 37-1 Page: 1 of 4 (1 of 9) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case 3:17-cv WHO Document 36 Filed 08/28/17 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No TODD S. GLASSEY AND MICHAEL E. MCNEIL,

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

) (CV9316, CV9383, CV045760)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case: , 04/17/2019, ID: , DktEntry: 37-1, Page 1 of 7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

[NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Transcription:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CITIZENS FOR BETTER FORESTRY et al., Plaintiffs/Appellees No. 07-16573 No. 07-16618 D. Ct. No. CY-05-01144-PJH (N.D. Cal.) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUR Defendants/Appellants and AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASSOCIATION et al. Defendants/Intervenors/Appellants DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE et al., Plaintiffs/Appellees PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rei. BILL LOCKYER Intervenor/Plaintiff/ Appellee CHUCK CONNR, Acting Secretary of Agriculture, In His Official Capacity, No. 07-16575 No. 07-16619 D. Ct. No. CY-05-04512-PJH (N.D. Cal.) APPELLANTS' JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS CONSOLIDATED APPEALS Defendants/Appellants and AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASSOCIATION Defendants/Intervenors/Appellants

APPELLANTS' JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS CONSOLIDATED APPEALS Pursuant to Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Defendants- Appellants United States Department of Agriculture et al. USDA" and Intervenors/Defendants/ Appellants American Forest & Paper Association and the American Forest Resource Council AFPAlAFRC" hereby move the Court to dismiss their consolidated appeals. The basis for this motion is as follows: The four appeals in this case arise from orders by the District Court for the Northern District of California setting aside a final rule issued by Defendant/Appellant United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA"), 70 Fed. Reg. 1023 (Jan. 5 2005) (the "2005 Planning Rule The district court entered the orders in two related cases: (1) an action by Plaintiff/Appellee Citizens for Better Forestry et al. CBF"), N.D. Cal. No. 05-cv- 1144-PJH; and (2) an action by Plaintiff/Appellee Defenders of Wildlife et al. DOW"), in which the People of the State of California ex rei. Edmund G. Brown, Jr. ("California ), joined as Intervenor Plaintiff, N. D. Cal. No. 04-cv-4512- PJH. AFPAlAFRC intervened in defense of the 2005 Planning Rule in both cases. The following four appeals were filed from the district court' s final judgment: (1) an appeal by USDA et al. in case no. 05-cv- 1144, docketed as No. 07-16573; (2) an appeal by the Secretary of Agriculture et al. in case no. 04-cv-

4512, docketed as 07-16575; (3) an appeal by AFPA/AFRC in case no. 05-cv- 1144, docketed as No. 07-16618; and (4) an appeal by AFPA/AFRC in case no. 04-cv-5412, docketed as 07-16619. This Court consolidated the four appeals by order dated October 11 2007. Under the current briefing schedule, the opening brief for appellant USDA is due on January 7, 2008 and the opening brief for Intervenor AFPA/AFRC is due on January 22 2008. No briefs have been filed and no taxable costs have been incurred. Following internal review, USDA has decided not to pursue its appeals. See 28 C. R. 20(b) (federal appeal decisions to be determined by Solicitor General). In light of the federal governent's decision, AFPA/AFRC has likewise decided not to pursue their appeals. Rule 42(b) states that the Court may dismiss an appeal on the appellants' motion "on terms agreed to by the parties or fixed by the Court." Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). On January 7 2008, undersigned counsel John L. Smeltzer spoke by telephone with Mark D. Fink, counsel for Appellees CBF et al. and Raissa Lerner counsel for Intervenor/Appellee California. Mr. Fink and Ms. Lerner advised that their clients have no objection to the dismissal of the appeals, with each party to pay its own costs on appeal. Undersigned counsel also telephoned Trent W. Orr

counsel for Appellees DOW etal. but was unable to obtain his clients ' position in time for the filing of this motion. Based on the foregoing, Appellants USDA and Intervenor/Appellants AFPA/AFRC jointly move for dismissal of their consolidated appeals, with each part to pay its own costs on appeal. Respectfully submitted for Defendants-Appellants United States Department of Agriculture et al. for Intervenor-Defendants-Appellants American Forest and Paper Association and American Forest Resource Council John L. Smeltzer Environment & Natural Resources Division, Appellate Section United States Department of Justice PO Box 23795 Washington, DC 20026-3795 (202) 305-0343 (202) 353-1873 (fax) jqhn. sme!tzer usqoj. gov Thomas R. Lundquist Crowell & Moring LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. Washington, DC 20004-2595 202-624-2500 202-628-5116 (fax) tlund uist crowell. com DATE: January 1J1 2008

~~~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Appellants ' Joint Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Appeals has been served by United States mail, this day of January 2008, upon the following counsel of record: for Defenders of Wildlife et at. Brian Segee Defenders of Wildlife 1130 17th Street, N. Washington, DC 20036-4604 (202) 682-9400 x 121 bsegee($defenders. org Trent Wiliam Orr Earthjustice 1025 Treat A venue San Francisco, CA 94110 (415) 648-1680 torr earthiustice.org Timothy J. Preso Earhjustice 209 S. Wilson Avenue Bozeman, MT 59718 406-586- 9699 tpreso earhiustice.org for California ex rel. Edmund G. Brown. Jr. Raissa Lerner California Attorney General' s Office 1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor O. Box 70550 Oakland, CA 94612-1413 (510) 622-2100 raissa.1emer doi. ca. gov for Citizens for Better Forestry et at. Marc D. Fin Attorney at Law 4515 Robinson Street Duluth, MN 55804 (218) 525-3884 mfink(q biol ogi caldi versi ty. org Peter M.K. Frost Western Environmental Law Center 1216 Lincoln Street ; Eugene, OR 97401 541-485-2471 frost westernlaw. org for American Forest 1. Michael Klise & Thomas R. Lundquist Crowell & Moring LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.. Washington, DC 20004-2595 (202) 624-2500 t1 undquist crowell.com Paper Ass 'n et al. JOHN L. Attorney S. Department of Justice