WildEarth Guardians v. Jackson

Filing 78

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 75 Motion for Administrative Motion to Enter Judgment (ig, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/3/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

WILDEARTH GUARDIANS,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

Case No.: 11-cv-5651-YGR
(and consolidated action 11-cv-5694 YGR)
ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
TO ENTER JUDGMENT

vs.
LISA JACKSON, in her official capacity as
Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency,

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

Defendant.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Plaintiff WildEarth Guardians filed its administrative motion to enter judgment. (Dkt. No.
75.) The Court having considered the motion, the opposition thereto, and the other papers filed in
this action, DENIES the motion.1
“In cases where Rule 58(a) requires a ‘separate document,’ judgment is now considered
entered ‘when the earlier of [two] events occurs: [1] the judgment or order is set forth on a
separate document, or [2] 150 days have run from entry of the judgment or order in the civil
docket under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a).’” Harmston v. City & Cnty. of San
Francisco, 627 F.3d 1273, 1280 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(7)(A)(ii) and
Fed.R.Civ.P. 58(c)(2)).
Here, Plaintiffs WildEarth Guardians, Midwest Environmental Defense Center, and Sierra
Club (“Plaintiffs”) moved for summary judgment in these consolidated cases. In its October 17,

25
26
27
28

1

On May 7, 2012, the Court granted EPA’s Motion to Dismiss Mandatory Duty Claims
as to Claim Two of MidWest Environmental Defense Center and Sierra Club’s Second Amended
Complaint and Claim One of WildEarth Guardians’ Complaint. (Dkt. No. 40.) The Court entered
a partial judgment on those claims July 12, 2012. (Dkt. No. 51.) This motion does not concern
those claims.

1

2012 Order (Dkt. No. 64, “October 17 Order”), the Court granted, in part, Plaintiffs’ Motion for

2

Summary Judgment. The parties were ordered to submit a proposed form of judgment. (October

3

17 Order at 6.) Plaintiffs submitted their proposed form of judgment October 22, 2012. EPA did

4

not indicate its approval or file its own proposed form of judgment.

5

Rather, on November 14, 2012, Defendant Lisa Jackson, in her official capacity as

6

Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), filed a Motion to

7

Amend the October 17 Order. (Dkt No. 65). On December 7, 2012, that motion was granted in

8

part, and the Court’s October 17 Order was amended accordingly. (Dkt. No. 69, “December 7

9

Order”.) EPA filed its notice of appeal of the December 7 Order on February 5, 2013. (Dkt. No.

10
11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12
13

70.)
Neither party submitted a revised proposed judgment after the December 7 Order. The
Court did not enter the earlier proposed judgment.
As a consequence, by operation of Rule 58(c)(2), judgment was entered 150 days from the

14

entry of the final order in this matter, since no separate final judgment was entered. Whether

15

measured from entry of the October 17 Order or the December 7 Order, that time has now passed.

16

The Court cannot enter a judgment at this time. The Court does not reach the question of whether

17

Plaintiffs may bring a motion for attorneys’ fees at this time.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED. This Order terminates Docket No. 75.

19
20

July 3, 2013

_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2