Conservation Congress v. United States Forest Service
Conservation Congress |
United States Forest Service |
2:2013cv00832 |
April 29, 2013 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
Sacramento Office |
Sacramento |
Dale A. Drozd |
Lawrence K. Karlton |
Environmental Matters |
42 U.S.C. ยง 4321 Review of Agency Action-Environment |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 68 ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/12/15. Considering the parties' 67 Stipulation and Proposed Order, the agreement is hereby APPROVED. Plaintiff's 58 Motion for Attorney Fees is hereby DENIED as moot. (Meuleman, A) |
Filing 60 ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 8/19/14 GRANTING 59 Motion to Stay Briefing on motion for attorney fees. (Manzer, C) |
Filing 57 ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 5/19/14: 50 Defendant's motion to amend the judgment is hereby DENIED, except that it may proceed with hazard tree abatement of the 0.23 miles of Maintenance Level 3 roads, as described by plaintiffs in their Opposition brief. See ECF No. 53 at 4-5. (Kaminski, H) |
Filing 56 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 10/28/13 ORDERING that the defendant's 50 Motion to Alter the Judgment is submitted upon the record and the 11/4/13 hearing is VACATED. (Manzer, C) |
Filing 49 ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 9/10/2013 ORDERING 46 plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order is DENIED as MOOT. (Reader, L) |
Filing 47 ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on September 6, 2013. Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment 17 on the NEPA claim is GRANTED. Defendant is hereby ENJOINED from carrying out any actions pursuant to the Project, other than those already app roved by this court. The matter is REMANDED to the ForestService so that, if it wishes to proceed with the Project, it can consult with FWS on how the Project would affect the Northern Spotted Owl and its Critical Habitat, and unless it obtains the r equired concurrence from FWS, for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. Defendants motion for summary judgment 19 on the NEPA claim is DENIED. Defendants motion for summary judgment on the NFMA claim is GRANTED, and plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the NFMA claim is DENIED. Defendants motion to strike (ECF No. 22 ), treated as an evidentiary objection, is GRANTED. Civil Case Terminated. CASE CLOSED. (Rivas, A) |
Filing 39 ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 7/19/13. The Court ORDERS that this Court's 7/12 Order 34 is modified to allow the work as described in Federal Defendant's Notice 33 to proceed. (Mena-Sanchez, L) |
Filing 34 ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 7/12/2013. Defendant shall, within 15 days of Order, file a Brief not exceeding 15 pages in length, advising Court whether or not, in its view, the 31 Notice regarding Fish and Wildlife Service Response (and Exhibits), is relevant to issue of "consultation". If so, explain why its recently-submitted correspondence with FWS qualifies as consultation. The Brief should also explain the distinction, if any, between a "consultation" a nd "technical assistance". Plaintiff shall, within 15 days of filing of defendant's Brief, file a response not exceeding 15 pages in length. Court is aware that defendant has voluntarily agreed not to implement, prior to 7/15/2013, any of the ground disturbing activities authorized by the Project, and to provide 72 hours notice before any such activities commence. In light of further Briefing Schedule, Court believes that further voluntary forbearance would be appropriate. Howev er, if defendant does not voluntarily forbear prior to 7/15/2013, Court ORDERS defendant refrain from any of the ground disturbing activities authorized by the Project, until no earlier than 30 days from date of plaintiff's response. If defendant voluntarily forbears for at least this period, this paragraph is VACATED with no further action required by either party. (Marciel, M) |
Filing 24 ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 6/11/2013 ORDERING the 22 Motion to Strike Hearing set for 7/1/2013 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Plaintiff's response to opposition is due by 6/14/2013. Federal Defedant's reply in support is due by 6/21/2013. (Donati, J) |
Filing 16 ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 5/30/13 ORDERING as follows:Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment is due May 31, 2013; Federal Defendant's response in opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment isdue June 7; Pl aintiff's response and reply is due June 13; Federal Defendant's reply is due June 19; A hearing on the Parties' cross-motions for summary judgment is set for July 1, 2013 at 10:00 a.m.; Plaintiff's May 20, 2013 motion for a temporary restraining order, ECF No. 10 , is withdrawn. (Becknal, R) |
Filing 13 ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 5/24/2013 re 12 Stipulation. Federal Defendant's response is not due today; The 5/30/2013 hearing is hereby VACATED; and the parties will file a joint status report with the court on 5/28/2013. (Donati, J) |
Filing 11 ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 5/21/2013 ORDERING as follows: If the Forest Service accepts a bid on the Project, Federal Defendant's response in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order is due May 24 . If the Forest Service does not accept a bid on the Project, Federal Defendant will inform Plaintiff on May 24 and the parties will file a stipulation with the Court on that day. A hearing on Plaintiff's 10 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is scheduled for 5/30/2013 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. (Zignago, K.) |
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Search for this case: Conservation Congress v. United States Forest Service | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Defendant: United States Forest Service | |
Represented By: | John Tustin, GOVT |
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Plaintiff: Conservation Congress | |
Represented By: | Rachel Marie Fazio |
Represented By: | Erik B. Ryberg, PHV |
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.