Atchafalaya Basinkeeper et al v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Filing 96

RULING AND ORDER denying 88 Motion to Stay Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 3/7/2018. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ATCHAFALAYA BASINKEEPER,
LOUISIANA CRAWFISH PRODUCERS
ASSOCIATION-WEST, GULF RESTORATION
NETWORK, WATERKEEPER ALLIANCE, AND
SIERRA CLUB AND ITS DELTA CHAPTER

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

18-23-SDD-EWD

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

RULING & ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Stay Preliminary Injunction
Pending Appeal1 filed by Intervenor Bayou Bridge Pipeline, LLC (“BBP”). Plaintiffs,
Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, Louisiana Crawfish Producers Association-West, Gulf
Restoration Network, Waterkeeper Alliance, and Sierra Club and its Delta Chapter
(“Plaintiffs”) filed an Opposition to this motion.2 Because BBP essentially asks this Court
to reverse its previous Ruling,3 the motion will be denied.
I.

BACKGROUND
On February 27, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary

Injunction,4 finding that the Corps acted in arbitrary and capricious fashion by failing to
adequately address restorative mitigation and cumulative effects on the environment for

1

Rec. Doc. No. 88.
Rec. Doc. No. 89. Plaintiffs’ Opposition was not substantive but primarily requested until March 5, 2018
to file a detailed response. As of the date of this Ruling, Plaintiffs have filed no substantive Opposition.
3
Rec. Doc. No. 86.
4
Rec. Doc. No. 15.
2

44552 
Page 1 of 4 

the proposed pipeline project in the Atchafalaya Basin.

The Court also found that

Plaintiffs had established the threat of irreparable harm and that the public interest in the
environment and unique character of the Atchafalaya Basin outweighed any short-term
economic harm to BBP. BBP now moves to stay the preliminary injunction pending
appeal and argues that it has satisfied the four factors for a stay of the injunction.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 62(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in pertinent part:
When an appeal is taken from an interlocutory or final judgment granting,
dissolving, or denying an injunction, the court in its discretion may suspend,
modify, restore, or grant an injunction during the pendency of the appeal
upon such terms as to bond or otherwise as it considers proper for the
security of the rights of the adverse party.

Stay of an injunction should first be sought at the district court level.5
An application under Rule 62(c) is committed to the court's discretion informed by
the balancing of certain factors.6 The considerations on a motion for stay pending appeal
are similar to those evaluated in deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction.7 The
Fifth Circuit has held that a court must consider four factors in deciding whether to grant
a stay pending appeal: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that
he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured
absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties
interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.”8 “A stay ‘is not a

5

Fed.R.App.P. 8(a).
11 Charles A. Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2904 at 501 (1995).
7
Schwartz v. Dolan, 159 F.R.D. 380, 383 (N.D.N.Y.1995).
8
Texas v. U.S., 787 F.3d 733, 747 (5th Cir. 2015).
6

44552 
Page 2 of 4 

matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result to the appellant.’”9
The movant bears the burden of proving these four factors.10 “‘[I]t is the movant's
obligation to justify the court's exercise of such an extraordinary remedy.’”11 “[T]he
movant must address each factor, regardless of its relative strength, providing specific
facts and affidavits supporting assertions that these factors exist.”12 Further, although the
decision to grant relief under Rule 62(c) is within the district court's discretion, “the stay
of an equitable order is an extraordinary device which should be granted sparingly.”13
The balancing of these four factors is plainly a case-by-case task that does not
submit to any rigid set of rules.14 The factors do not function as “prerequisites” but as
“interrelated considerations that must be balanced together.”15 The weight accorded
each factor is not necessarily the same,16 and no one factor is determinative.17
III.

ANALYSIS
The Court has considered BBP’s arguments and applied the four factors set forth

above. The Court finds that BBP’s requested relief would turn the Court’s Ruling on its
head. The Court has already weighed the potential harm to BBP and found that the public
interest and threat of harm to the environment outweighed the purported economic harm

9

Id. at 747 (quoting Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Surgical Health Servs. v. Abbott, 734 F.3d 406,
410 (5th Cir.2013)(quoting Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 427 (2009)).
10
Wildmon v. Berwick Universal Pictures, 983 F.2d 21, 23 (5th Cir.1992).
11
McGregor Printing Corp. v. Kemp, 811 F.Supp. 10, 12 (D.D.C.1993) (quoting Cuomo v. United States
Nuclear Regulatory Com'n, 772 F.2d 972, 978 (D.C.Cir.1985)), rev'd on other grounds, 20 F.3d 1188
(D.C.Cir.1994); 11 Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2904 at 503–05 (“Because the burden of meeting
this standard is a heavy one, more commonly stay requests will not meet this standard and will be denied.”).
12
Michigan Coalition v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150, 154 (6th Cir.1991) (citation omitted).
13
United States v. Louisiana, 815 F.Supp. 947, 948 (E.D. La. 1993).
14
Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 777 (1987).
15
Michigan Coalitio, 945 F.2d at 153.
16
Standard Havens Products v. Gencor Industries, 897 F.2d 511, 512 (Fed.Cir.1990).
17
Constructors Ass'n of Western Pennsylvania v. Kreps, 573 F.2d 811, 815 (3rd Cir.1978); Republic
Industries v. Central Pennsylvania Teamsters, 537 F.Supp. 1036, 1036 (E.D.Pa.1982).

44552 
Page 3 of 4 

to BBP. The Court has not been presented with any justifiable reason to stay the
preliminary injunction and reverse the protection of the Atchafalaya Basin pending BBP’s
appeal to the Fifth Circuit. Indeed, the Court finds that it would be wholly inconsistent for
this Court to grant Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, yet grant a stay pending
appeal.18 The Court maintains its finding that such a considerable project - that will have
permanent damaging environmental impacts to the Atchafalaya Basin - should at least
be halted until this matter can be tried on the merits.
Accordingly, BBP’s Motion to Stay Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal19 is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on March 7, 2018.

S
JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

18

Monumental Task Committee, Inc. v. Foxx, No. 15-cv-6905, 2016 WL 430450 at *2 (E.D. La. Feb. 4,
2016).
19
Rec. Doc. No. 88.

44552 
Page 4 of 4