Center For Biological Diversity et al v. Federal Highway Administration et al

Filing 53

JUDGMENT ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge George H. Wu, Related to: Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, 50 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: 1. Judgment is entered in favor of FHWA and RCTC as to each and every c ause of action asserted in the Center's Complaint. 2. FHWA and RCTC are entitled to recover their costs of suit herein from the Center, to be addressed in a separate Application to the Clerk to Tax Costs to be noticed and filed by FHWA and RCTC. 3. The Center's Complaint is dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (mrgo)

Download PDF
JS-6 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 3390 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, 5TH FLOOR P.O. BOX 1028 RIVERSIDE, CA 92502 9 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY; SIERRA CLUB; FRIENDS OF THE NORTHERN SAN JACINTO VALLEY; and SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY AUDUBON SOCIETY, Plaintiffs, 10 11 12 13 14 15 v. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION; GREGORY G. NADEAU, Administrator; and VINCENT MAMMANO, Division Administrator, Case No. EDCV 16-133-GW(SPx) Judge: Hon. George H. Wu JUDGMENT ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Hearing: March 6, 2017 Time: 8:30 a.m. Ctrm: 10 Action Filed: January 22, 2016 Defendants. ___________________________________ 16 17 18 19 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, Intervenor-Defendant. 20 21 The Court received a Motion for Summary Judgment from Plaintiffs Center 22 for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, Friends of the Northern San Jacinto Valley, 23 and San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society (collectively, the “Center”) and 24 Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment from Defendants Federal Highway 25 Administration, Gregory G. Nadeau, and Vincent Mammano (collectively, 26 “FHWA”), and Intervenor-Defendant Riverside County Transportation 27 Commission (“RCTC”). The Court received argument on the motions from counsel 28 for the Center, FHWA, and RCTC during a hearing held on March 6, 2017. Case No. 5:16-cv-00133 -1- [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 After full consideration of all the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the 2 documents and pleadings submitted and judicially noticed, the admissible evidence, 3 and oral argument of counsel for all parties, the Court rules on the merits in favor of 4 FHWA and RCTC in accordance with the Court’s Final Rulings on Plaintiffs’ 5 Motion for Summary Judgment; Federal Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary 6 Judgment; Riverside County Transportation Commission’s Cross-Motion for 7 Summary Judgement [Docket No. 50]. Under this approach, the Court denies the 8 Center’s motion and grants FHWA’s and RCTC’s motions. LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 3390 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, 5TH FLOOR P.O. BOX 1028 RIVERSIDE, CA 92502 9 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as 10 follows: 11 1. 12 13 Judgment is entered in favor of FHWA and RCTC as to each and every cause of action asserted in the Center’s Complaint. 2. FHWA and RCTC are entitled to recover their costs of suit herein 14 from the Center, to be addressed in a separate Application to the Clerk to Tax Costs 15 to be noticed and filed by FHWA and RCTC. 16 3. The Center’s Complaint is dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED. 18 19 20 DATED: May 31, 2017 21 __________________________________ HON. GEORGE H. WU United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 5:16-cv-00133 -2- [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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.


Why Is My Information Online?