Center for Biological Diversity et al v. Salazar et al

Filing 67

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 49 Motion for leave to file a second amended complaint; directing the Clerk to file the lodged proposed second amended complaint. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 6/8/10.(REW)

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 28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Center for Biological Diversity; Grand ) Canyon Trust; Sierra Club; and Kaibab ) ) Band of Paiute Indians, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior; ) ) United States Bureau of Land ) Management; Denison Arizona Strip, LLC; and Denison Mines (USA) Corp., ) ) ) Defendants. )

No. CV-09-8207-PCT-DGC ORDER

Arizona 1 Mine is a uranium mine located near Grand Canyon National Park. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the federal Defendants have violated environmental laws in connection with Arizona 1 Mine, and request an injunction directing mine operations to cease. Dkt. #17. Denison Arizona Strip, LLC and Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (collectively, "Denison") have intervened as defendants on the ground that they own unpatented claims at Arizona 1 Mine and conduct operations pursuant to a plan issued by Defendant BLM. See Dkt. ##19, 31. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #49. Plaintiffs seek to more accurately describe the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians and to correct a factual error regarding where the California condor was reintroduced in 1996. Id. at 2. No opposition has been filed, and the time for doing so has expired. See LRCiv 7.2(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).

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 28

Rule 15 makes clear that the Court "should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The policy in favor of leave to amend must not only be heeded by the Court, see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962), it must also be applied with extreme liberality, see Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 880 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court, in the interest of justice, will grant Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. See Neuendorf v. Unknown Party, No. CV 10124-PHX-RCB (DKD), 2010 WL 1743198, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 27, 2010). IT IS ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (Dkt. #49) is granted. 2. The Clerk is directed to filed the lodged proposed second amended complaint (Dkt. #50). DATED this 8th day of June, 2010.

-2-