Earth Island Institute et al v. Quinn et al

Filing 43

ORDER for NON-RELATED CASE signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 7/24/2014. Court is DECLINING 42 to relate case no. 2:14-CV-1723 GEB EFB. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE and
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL
DIVERSITY,

8
9
10
11
12
13

No.

2:14-cv-01723-GEB-EFB

ORDER

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

14

Defendants.

15
16
17

EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE and
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL
DIVERSITY,

20
21
22
23
24

1:14-cv-01140 KJM-SKO

Plaintiffs,

18
19

No.

v.
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.

25
26

The

Notice

of

Related

Cases

concerning

the

above-

27

captioned cases filed July 23, 2014, has been considered. As

28

stated in the July 22, 2014 Order Severing Claims,
1

1

Although Plaintiffs allege the same four
claims as to each project, the projects are
geographically and temporally distinct. The
Aspen Project was created in response to the
Aspen fire, which occurred in July of 2013,
in the Sierra National Forest in Fresno
County, California. The Big Hope Project was
created in response to the American fire,
which occurred in August of 2013, in the
Tahoe National Forest in Placer County,
California.

2
3
4
5
6
7

(Order Severing Claims 2:18-26, ECF No. 36 (citations omitted).)
Further,

8

the

projects

were

approved

by

different

9

decision makers and involve separate administrative records. (See

10

Notice of Related Cases 2:18-24, 4:11, ECF No. 41.) Also, the

11

dispute concerning potential effects on the Pacific Fisher is

12

only involved in the Aspen Project. (See, e.g., Compl. && 75-79,

13

ECF No. 1.)

14

Therefore, even though Plaintiffs allege each project

15

violates the same federal environmental laws, decision concerning

16

the

17

records and application of different facts to the law.

two

projects

requires

review

of

separate

administrative

For the stated reasons, the undersigned judge declines

18
19

to relate Case No. 1:14-cv-01140 KJM-SKO.

20

Dated:

July 24, 2014

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2