Resource Renewal Institute et al v. National Park Service et al

Filing 55

ORDER RE: REFERRAL FOR EARLY MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong on 7/22/16. (sisS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5

OAKLAND DIVISION
6
7

RESOURCE RENEWAL INSTITUTE,

Case No: C 16-0688 SBA

8 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY,

and WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT,
9

Plaintiffs,

ORDER RE REFERRAL FOR
EARLY MANDATORY
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

10

vs.
11

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, a federal
12 agency, and CICELY MULDOON, in her

official capacity as Superintendent of Point
13 Reyes National Seashore,

Defendants.

14
15
16

Plaintiffs Resource Renewal Institute, Center for Biological Diversity and Western

17

Watersheds Project (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), bring the instant action under the

18

Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701, against the National Park Service and

19

Cicely Muldoon (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have

20

violated various federal laws by failing to revise the General Management Plan for the

21

Point Reyes National Seashore (“Seashore”) and continuing to authorize dairy farming and

22

cattle ranching activities at the Seashore without conducting the requisite environmental

23

review.

24

The Court recently denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, but

25

granted their alternative motion for a more definite statement regarding which particular

26

ranching authorizations are at issue in this action. Dkt. 49. In addition, the parties have

27

notified the Court of Plaintiffs’ intention to file a motion for preliminary injunction to

28

enjoin Defendants from issuing a Ranch Management Plan and/or new grazing

1

authorizations or leases before a revised General Management Plan/Environmental Impact

2

Study is completed. See Dkt. 27, 53.

3

Plaintiffs’ anticipated motion for preliminary injunction—and the further litigation

4

of this action—are likely to consume a considerable amount of the parties and the Court’s

5

time and resources. In addition, the Court’s rulings may lead to the filing of one or more

6

appeals, engendering additional costs and further delaying the final resolution of the instant

7

dispute. As such, the Court finds that it is in the parties’ best interest to engage in a good

8

faith attempt to resolve the action on terms that are mutually acceptable to them. To that

9

end, it is the Court’s intention to refer this action to a magistrate judge for a mandatory

10

settlement conference, which will be scheduled on an expedited basis (i.e., within the next

11

30 to 60 days, depending on the assigned magistrate judge’s availability). Accordingly,

12

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the parties shall meet and confer forthwith in an

13

effort to mutually identify three possible magistrate judges of this Court to conduct the

14

settlement conference. If the parties cannot reach such an agreement, they shall separately

15

list their preferences. The parties shall jointly file their list of proposed settlement judges

16

by no later than July 27, 2016.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 7/22/16

______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
Senior United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-