The Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat v. US Army Corps of Engineers et al
| The Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat |
| US Army Corps of Engineers, Lieutenant General Todd T. Semonite, Brigadier General Scott A. Spellmon and Colonel John G. Buck |
| 2:2016cv00950 |
| June 22, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Washington |
| Seattle Office |
| King |
| Robert S. Lasnik |
| Environmental Matters |
| 33 U.S.C. ยง 1365 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
124
ORDER granting Plaintiff's 99 Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses, in the amount of $710,143.91. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (LH)
|
|
Filing
113
ORDER granting Plaintiff's 111 Unopposed Motion to Revise Proposed Briefing Schedule Regarding the Pending 99 Motion for an Award of Fees and Expenses. Plaintiffs' Supplemental Petition is due by 7/1/2021. US Army Corps Response brief is due by 8/16/2021. Plaintiffs' Reply brief is due by 9/6/2021. The Clerk of Court is directed to renote the pending 99 motion for an award of fees and expenses on the Court's calendar for consideration on 9/10/2021. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (LH)
|
|
Filing
106
ORDER granting Parties' 105 Motion to Stay Briefing re 99 MOTION for Attorney Fees. The parties shall jointly submit a proposed briefing schedule regarding the Motions for an Award of Fees and Expenses no later than ten days after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issues its mandate at the conclusion of the pending consolidated appeals (Appeal Nos. 20-35546 and 20- 35547). Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (LH)
|
|
Filing
89
ORDER VACATING NWP 48 IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: NWP 48 and all authorizations or verifications under it are VACATED in the State of Washington. This vacatur is hereby STAYED for sixty days to allow the Corps and/or Intervenors to appeal and obtain a stay from the Ninth Circuit. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (MW)
|
|
Filing
77
ORDER GRANTING Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe's 76 Request to Participate in Oral Argument. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (MW)
|
|
Filing
65
ORDER granting Amicus Squaxin Island Tribe, Plaintiff Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe's 62 Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(MW)
|
|
Filing
61
ORDER HOLDING NWP 48 UNLAWFUL IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON AND REQUESTING ADDITIONAL BRIEFING. Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment (Dkt. # 36 in C16-0950RSL and Dkt. # 31 in C17-1209RSL) are GRANTED and defendant's and intervenors� 39; cross-motions (Dkt. # 44 and # 45 in C16-0950RSL and Dkt. # 43 and # 44 in C17-1209RSL). Because there is a presumption in favor of vacatur, defendants, intervenors, and Swinomish will be the moving parties and may file motions, not to excee d 15 pages, regarding the appropriate relief for the APA violations discussed above. Only one motion may be filed in each of the three cause numbers at issue, C16-0950RSL, C17-1209RSL, and C18-0598RSL. The motions, if any, shall be filed on or before October 30, 2019, and shall be noted for consideration on November 15, 2019. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (PM)
|
|
Filing
51
ORDER granting 50 Motion to Lift Stay, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. The Clerk of Court is directed to renote the cross-motions for summary judgment (Dkt. #36 and #44) on the Court's calendar for Friday, March 1, 2019. The deadline for Defendants' and Intervenor's replies in support of their cross-motions for summary judgment is February 27, 2019. (KERR)
|
|
Filing
49
ORDER granting 48 Stipulated Motion to Stay Case, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. Federal Defendants shall notify the Court and all parties as soon as Congress has appropriated said funds and the parties shall update the deadlines for Defendants' and Intervenor's replies and renote their motions on the Court's calendar. (KERR)
|
|
Filing
43
ORDER revising schedule for summary judgment briefing re parties' 42 Stipulated Motion, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)
|
|
Filing
41
ORDER granting plaintiffs' 35 Unopposed Motion to File Over-Length Briefs, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)
|
|
Filing
34
STIPULATION AND ORDER to Revise Schedule for Summary Judgment Briefing re parties' Stipulated Motion (Filed in C17-1209, Dkt. 28), signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)
|
|
Filing
31
SCHEDULING ORDER re parties' 30 Stipulated MOTION to Consolidate Cases; The case management schedule issued in C16-0950RSL (Dkt. 21 ) is hereby VACATED; The following case management deadlines will govern both C16-950RSL and C17-1209RSL going forward (See Order for details.) Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(SWT)
|
|
Filing
24
ORDER granting plaintiff's 22 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint; amended complaint due within 5 days; response to amended complaint due 7/17/2017, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (PM)
|
|
Filing
21
AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER re parties' 20 Stipulated Motion; motion to allow discovery must be filed by 8/31/2017, Motion for summary judgment due by 10/16/2017, Opposition to motion for summary judgment due by 11/17/2017, Plaintiff's combined opposition and reply due by 12/18/2017, Defendants' and Intervenor's replies due by 1/18/2017, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)
|
|
Filing
19
ORDER granting parties' 18 Stipulated Motion to Vacate/Extend; 16 Case management Order is vacated; Supplemental Joint Status Report due by 4/28/2017, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)
|
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 Washington Western 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
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.
