Center for Food Safety et al v. Connor et al

Filing 529

ORDER by Judge Jeffrey S. White denying 524 Motion (jswlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, et al. Plaintiffs, v. CHARLES CONNOR, et al. Defendants. / ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO REINSTATE ORIGINAL HEARING DATE No. C 08-00484 JSW

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Now before the Court is the administrative motion filed by Plaintiffs to reinstate the original hearing date on permanent injunctive relief. The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' motion and Defendant' opposition and HEREBY DENIES Plaintiffs' motion. Although the Court is cognizant of Plaintiffs' concern about delaying any requested injunction, Plaintiffs rely heavily on Geertson Farms Inc. v. Johanns, 2007 WL 776146 (N.D. Cal. March 12, 2007). The Supreme Court issued its ruling in that case just three days ago. The Court shall carefully and thoroughly address the impact of the Supreme Court's ruling and shall do so by considering the parties reasoned arguments. However, in light of Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' motion, the Court cautions Defendants' counsel to not put vigorously advocating for their clients ahead of accurately construing legal authority. Defendants argue that the Supreme Court held that "the lower courts erred in halting planting of Roundup Ready alfalfa rather than entering the agency's narrowlytailored, proposed interim measures on continued planting... ." (Opp. at 2.) The Supreme Court actually stated was: "The District Court may well have acted within its discretion in refusing to

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

craft a judicial remedy that would have authorized the continued planting and harvesting of [Roundup Ready alfalfa] while the EIS is being prepared." Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, __ S.Ct. __, 2010 WL 2471057, *13 (U.S. June 21, 2010). In addressing the recent ruling in Monsanto, the Court would like the parties to address the Supreme Court's statement that: "we do know that the vacatur of APHIS's deregulation decision means that virtually no [Roundup Ready alfalfa] can be grown or sold until such time as a new deregulation decision is in place, ... ." Id. at 15. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2010

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2