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)
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?