Anderson et al v. McCarthy et al

Filing 74

ORDER RE MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION 66 .(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/14/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

JEFF ANDERSON; BRET ADEE; DAVID
HACKENBERG; LUCAS CRISWELL;
GAIL FULLER; CENTER FOR FOOD
SAFETY; AMERICAN BIRD
CONSERVANCY; PESTICIDE ACTION
NETWORK NORTH AMERICA;
POLLINATOR STEWARDSHIP
COUNCIL,

17

ORDER RE MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION

Plaintiffs,

15
16

No. C 16-00068 WHA

v.
GINA MCCARTHY; ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,

18

Defendants.
/

19
20

Defendants have made a motion for “clarification” regarding the order denying

21

dismissal. Putting aside the procedural propriety of such a motion, defendants raise a fair point,

22

namely that the Court’s order on the motion to dismiss failed to expressly come to grips with

23

that part of the motion directed at the “failure to act” claim for relief. Instead, the order dealt

24

principally with the “final agency action” issue. Nevertheless, the parties are directed to

25

address all of the issues in the upcoming summary judgment motion. If an error was committed

26

by the

27
28

1

Judge, no harm will be done in postponing resolution of that issue until summary judgment is

2

vacated. The hearing on the motion for clarification is vacated.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: July 14, 2016.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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