Center for Biological Diversity et al v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, et al

Filing 79

JUDGMENT by Judge George H. Wu, in favor of Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety against Cadiz, Inc., U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt. Judgement is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity and Center for Fo od Safety and against Defendants U.S. Bureau of Land Management et al. and Defendant-Intervenors Cadiz, Inc. et al. in accordance with the Courts June 20, 2019 final ruling on the parties cross-motions for summary judgment. ECF No. 75. Defendants October 13, 2017 determination regarding the Cadiz pipeline is hereby set aside and remanded to Defendants. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (yl)

J S -6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

GREGORY C. LOARIE (CA Bar No. 215859)
MARIE E. LOGAN (CA Bar No. 308228)
EARTHJUSTICE
50 California Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: [phone] • F: [phone]
E: [e-mail] • [e-mail]
LISA T. BELENKY (CA Bar No. 203225)
ARUNA M. PRABHALA (CA Bar No. 278865)
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
1212 Broadway Street, Suite 800
Oakland, CA 94612
T: [phone] • F: [phone]
E: [e-mail] • [e-mail]

10 ADAM F. KEATS (CA Bar No. 191157)
11 CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY
303 Sacramento Street, Floor 2
12 San Francisco, CA 94111
T: [phone] • F: [phone]
13 E: [e-mail]
14
Counsel for Plaintiffs
15
16

IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

17

18 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
19 and CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY,
Plaintiffs,

20
21

vs.

22 U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MGMT., et al.,
23
Defendants,
24
25
26
27

and
CADIZ, INC., et al.,
Defendant-Intervenors.

) Case No. CV 17-8587-GW-ASx
)
) (Consolidated with Case No.
) 2:18-cv-06775-GW-AS)
)
)
) JUDGMENT
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

28
1
[Proposed] Judgment – Case No. 2:17-cv-08587

JUDGMENT

1
2

Judgement is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiffs Center for Biological

3

Diversity and Center for Food Safety and against Defendants U.S. Bureau of Land

4

Management et al. and Defendant-Intervenors Cadiz, Inc. et al. in accordance with the

5

Court’s June 20, 2019 final ruling on the parties’ cross-motions for summary

6

judgment. ECF No. 75. Defendants’ October 13, 2017 determination regarding the

7

Cadiz pipeline is hereby set aside and remanded to Defendants. See 5 U.S.C. § 706.

8

The Court shall retain jurisdiction to resolve any motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.

9
10
11 Dated: June 30, 2019
12

HON. GEORGE H. WU
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
[Proposed] Judgment – Case No. 2:17-cv-08587