San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority et al v. Salazar et al

Filing 957

ORDER on Juridiction to consider plaintiffs' Injunctive Relief Petition re: Fall X2 Action, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 7/8/2011. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – FRESNO DIVISION
10
11

THE DELTA SMELT CASES

12

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA
WATER AUTHORITY, et al. v.
SALAZAR, et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-407)

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-407-OWW-DLB
1:09-cv-422-OWW-DLB
1:09-cv-631-OWW-DLB
1:09-cv-892-OWW-GSA

STATE WATER CONTRACTORS v.
SALAZAR, et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-422)

PARTIALLY CONSOLIDATED WITH:
1:09-cv-480-OWW-GSA

COALITION FOR A SUSTAINABLE
DELTA, et al. v. UNITED STATES FISH
AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, et al.
(Case No. 1:09-cv-480)

ORDER ON JURISDICTION TO
CONSIDER PLAINTIFFS’ INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF PETITION RE FALL X2 ACTION

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT v.
UNITED STATES FISH & WILDLIFE
SERVICE, et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-631)
STEWART & JASPER ORCHARDS, et
al. v. UNITED STATES FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE, et al.
Case No. 1:09-cv-892)

23
24
25
26
27
28
DIEPENBROCK
ELKIN LLP

Order on Jurisdiction to Consider Injunctive Relief Petition re Fall X2 Action

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

1

The Court has read and considered the memoranda of points and authorities and other

2

documents filed in support of and in opposition to the jurisdiction of the Court to consider the

3

motion for injunctive relief brought by Plaintiffs San Luis & Delta Mendota Water Authority,

4

Westlands Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, State Water

5

Contractors, Kern County Water Agency, and Coalition for a Sustainable Delta, and joined in by

6

Plaintiff-in-Intervention the California Department of Water Resources (“DWR”), regarding

7

Action 4 (the “Fall X2 Action”) of the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative of the 2008 Delta

8

Smelt Biological Opinion. The Court has heard and considered the arguments of counsel at the

9

hearing on this matter held on June 20, 2010.

10

On June 24, 2011, the Court filed its Memorandum Decision Re Jurisdiction to Consider

11

Plaintiffs’ Injunctive Relief Petition re Fall X2 Action (Doc. 930). The June 24, 2011

12

memorandum decision constitutes the statement of reasons for the Court’s ruling. For the

13

reasons more fully explained in the Court’s June 24, 2011 memorandum decision, IT IS

14

HEREBY ORDERED:

15
16
17
18

(A) The District Court has jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief
against the Fall X2 Action; and
(B) Briefing and the hearing shall proceed as ordered in the Court’s June 3, 2011
Scheduling Order (Doc. 895).

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated: _July 8, 2011_______

22

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER
Honorable Oliver W. Wanger
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
DIEPENBROCK
ELKIN LLP

-1Order on Jurisdiction to Consider Injunctive Relief Petition re Fall X2 Action

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com