Earth Island Institute et al v. Quinn et al

Filing 36

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 7/22/2014 SEVERING plaintiffs' claims concerning the Aspen Project and Big Hope Project. Plaintiffs' claims concerning the Aspen Project are TRANSFERRED to the Fresno Division. Fresno Case number for Aspen Project Claim is 1:14-cv-1140 SKO.(Donati, J)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE and
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL
DIVERSITY,

9

12
13
14
15
16

ORDER SEVERING CLAIMS AND
TRANSFERRING CLAIMS CONCERNING
THE ASPEN RECOVERY AND
REFORESTATION PROJECT TO FRESNO*

Plaintiff,

10
11

No. 2:14-cv-01723-GEB-EFB

v.
TOM QUINN, in his official
capacity as Forest Supervisor
for the Tahoe National
Forest, DEAN GOULD, in his
official capacity as Forest
Supervisor for the Sierra
National Forest, and UNITED
STATES FOREST SERVICE, an
agency of the Department of
Agriculture,
Defendants.

17
18
19

This action was originally filed in the United States

20

District

21

Defendants

22

District.

23

Court
moved

for

the

to

sever

Northern
claims

District

and

of

transfer

California.

venue

to

this

The Honorable Jon S. Tigar granted Defendants’ motion

24

to

25

“Having concluded that this action should, and will, be heard by

26

the Eastern District, this Court will not make discretionary case

transfer

venue

and

denied

the

severance

motion,

stating:

27
*

28

This matter is suitable for decision without oral argument.
R. 230(g).

1

E.D. Cal.

1

management

2

Defendants’ motion to sever is DENIED without prejudice toward

3

renewal in the Eastern District.” (Order Denying Mot. to Sever

4

and Granting Mot. to Transfer Venue 14:5-7, ECF No. 30.)

5

decisions

on

behalf

of

that

court.

Therefore,

Regardless of whether viewed as a renewed motion by
motion,1

6

Defendants

7

claims concerning the Aspen Recovery and Reforestation Project

8

(“Aspen

9

Project (“Big Hope Project”) into two actions.

10

or

its

Project”)

own

and

Plaintiffs’

Big

Hope

Complaint

the

Fire

Court

severs

Salvage

comprises

Plaintiffs’

and

Restoration

three

National

11

Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) Claims and one National Forest

12

Management Act (“NFMA”) Claim. In essence, Plaintiffs allege the

13

Aspen Project and Big Hope Project each failed to prepare an

14

Environmental Impact Statement, failed to consider significant

15

new scientific information, failed to take the requisite “hard

16

look” at their environmental impacts and cumulative effects, and

17

failed to consider the best available science in violation of

18

these

19

Plaintiffs allege the same four claims as to each project, the

20

projects are geographically and temporally distinct. The Aspen

21

Project was created in response to the Aspen fire, which occurred

22

in July of 2013, in the Sierra National Forest in Fresno County,

23

California. (Pls.’ Compl. & 30, 32.) The Big Hope Project was

24

created

25

August of 2013, in the Tahoe National Forest in Placer County,

26

California. Id. at & 25, 27. Plaintiffs allege “Defendant Tom

laws.

in

(Pls.’

response

Compl.

to

the

26:10-28:27,

American

ECF

fire,

No.

which

1.)

Although

occurred

27
1

28

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, “[o]n motion or its own, the
court may at any time . . . sever any claim . . . .”

2

in

1

Quinn

2

whereas Defendant Dean Gould “signed the Decision Notice for the

3

Aspen Project.” Id. at & 14. Therefore, even though Plaintiffs

4

allege each project violated the same federal environmental laws,

5

“the Court would still have to give [the] claim[s] individualized

6

attention” as to the two projects. Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d

7

1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997). “[T]he mere fact that all Plaintiffs’

8

claims arise under the same general law does not necessarily

9

establish a common question of law or fact.” Id.

signed

the

Decision

Notice

for

the

Big

Hope

Project,”

10

For the stated reasons, Plaintiffs’ claims concerning

11

the Aspen Project and the Big Hope Project are severed into two

12

actions. Further, Plaintiffs’ claims concerning the Aspen Project

13

are transferred to the Fresno Division under Local Rule 120(f)

14

since the Aspen Project is located in Fresno County.

15

Dated:

July 22, 2014

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3