Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. et al v. Perry et al
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL by Judge Chhabria denying 86 Administrative Motion for Stay Pending Appeal. (vclc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2018)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
COUNCIL, INC., et al.,
Case No. 17-cv-03404-VC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
STAY PENDING APPEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 86, 87
RICK PERRY, et al.,
The motion for a stay pending appeal is denied, because the Department and the
Intervenor have not provided any support for their assertion that a "[d]enial of a stay also could
harm manufacturers, as they will need to begin taking steps and incurring costs in order to
comply with any new standards by the compliance date." Dkt. No. 86 at 2; see also Lair v.
Bullock, 697 F.3d 1200, 1214 (9th Cir. 2012). Denial is without prejudice to renewing the
motion in this Court within 7 days of this order if the Department or the Intervenor can make a
better showing in support of this assertion. Any renewed motion must also address (1) why the
harm to manufacturers is irreparable, and (2) why that harm outweighs the harms caused by
further delaying the publication of these four rules. See Lair, 697 F.3d at 1214-15. In any event,
this Court's ruling is further stayed so that the Department and the Intervenor have sufficient time
to seek a stay from the Court of Appeals (and from this Court if they wish to file a renewed
motion). Therefore, absent further order from this Court or from the Court of Appeals, the
Department is required to submit the rules to the Federal Register for publication within 28 days
of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 13, 2018
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?