Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations et al v. United States Department of the Interior et al

Filing 109

AMENDED JUDGMENT AFTER APPEAL AND REMAND signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/29/2016. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

FRESNO DIVISION

7
8
9

PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF
FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATIONS, and SAN
FRANCISCO CRAB BOAT OWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.,

10
11
12
13

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 1:12-CV-01303-LJO-MJS
AMENDED JUDGMENT AFTER
APPEAL AND REMAND

v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR, and UNITED STATES
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION,

14
Defendants,

15
16
17
18
19

and
WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT, SAN
LUIS WATER DISTRICT, and PANOCHE
WATER DISTRICT,
Defendant-Intervenors.

20
21
22

Pursuant to the remand instructions contained in the Amended Memorandum filed

23

by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on July 25, 2016, [ECF No.

24

102] this Court=s Memorandum of Decision and Order Re Cross Motions for Summary

25

Judgment filed February 6, 2014, granting summary judgment in favor of defendants,

26

[ECF No. 88] and the judgment entered thereon [ECF No. 89] (AOrder and Judgment@) are

27

VACATED IN PART. For the reasons set forth in the remand instructions:

28

1

(1) As to the First Claim for Relief in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint

2

(“FAC”), filed December 4, 2012 [ECF No. 47], Judgment is hereby entered:

3

a. In favor of Plaintiffs and against Federal Defendants and

4

Defendant-Intervenors with respect to Plaintiffs’ claim that the

5

no-action alternative in Federal Defendants’ Environmental

6

Assessment (“EA”) is unlawful;

7

b. In favor of Plaintiffs and against Federal Defendants and

8

Defendant-Intervenors with respect to Plaintiffs’ claim that

9

Federal Defendants’ EA unlawfully fails to give full and

10

meaningful consideration to an alternative reducing maximum

11

contract quantities;

12

c. Against Plaintiffs and in favor of Federal Defendants and

13

Defendant-Intervenors with respect to all other aspects of

14

Plaintiffs’ First Claim for Relief in the FAC;

15

(2) As to the Second Claim for Relief the FAC, Judgment is hereby

16

entered against Plaintiffs and in favor of Federal Defendants and

17

Defendant-Intervenors;

18

(3) Defendants are hereby directed to proceed in a manner consistent with

19

the conclusions of the Amended Memorandum in any future EA for an

20

interim contract renewal; and

21

(4) This Court retains jurisdiction over Plaintiffs= claims for costs and

22

attorneys= fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C.

23

§ 2412.

24
25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 29, 2016

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE