Wild Fish Conservancy v. Irving et al

Filing 23

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS AGAINST BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION AND ELLIOT MAINZER FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AS MOOT denying 9 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Signed by Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. (VR, Courtroom Deputy)

1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

3
4

WILD FISH CONSERVANCY,

No. 2:14-CV-0306-SMJ

5
Plaintiff,
6
v.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

DAVE IRVING, in his official
capacity as the Manager of the
Leavenworth Fisheries Complex;
UNITED STATES FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE; DANIEL M.
ASHE, in his official capacity as the
Director of the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service; UNITED
STATES BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION; LOWELL
PIMLEY, in his official capacity as
the Acting Commissioner of the
United States Bureau of
Reclamation; BONNEVILLE
POWER ADMINISTRATION; and,
ELLIOT MAINZER, in his official
capacity as the Administrator and
Chief Executive Officer of the
Bonneville Power Administration,

ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS CLAIMS AGAINST
BONNEVILLE POWER
ADMINISTRATION AND ELLIOT
MAINZER FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION AS MOOT

17
Defendants.
18
19

Before the Court, without oral argument, is Defendants' Partial Motion to

20

Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 9. This Motion, filed November 17, 2014,

ORDER - 1

1

seeks the dismissal of Defendants Bonneville Power Administration (“BPA”) and

2

Elliot Mainzer as parties to the action pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(1). Id. at 2.

3

Defendants argue that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because “the

4

Northwest Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(5), vests exclusive jurisdiction over

5

challenges to all “final actions” of Bonneville [such as the one tying the BPA to

6

this case] in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals.” Id. at 2.

7

On December 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint, ECF

8

No. 10. This Complaint did not list the BPA or Elliot Mainzer, the administrator

9

and CEO of the BPA, as parties. That same day, Plaintiff also filed a response to

10

Defendants’ motion arguing that it should be denied as moot because the First

11

Amended Complaint supersedes the original.

12

Having reviewed the pleadings and the file in this matter, the Court is fully

13

informed and denies Defendants’ motion as moot. Plaintiff has voluntarily

14

dismissed any claims against BPA and Elliot Mainzer.

15

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

16

1.

Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF
No. 9, is DENIED as moot.

17
18

///

19

//

20

/

ORDER - 2

1

2.

The Clerk’s Office is directed to CHANGE the case caption in this
matter to:

2

WILD FISH CONSERVANCY,

3
4

Plaintiff,

5

v.
DAVE IRVING, in his official
capacity as the Manager of the
Leavenworth Fisheries Complex;
UNITED STATES FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE; DANIEL M.
ASHE, in his official capacity as the
Director of the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service; UNITED
STATES BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION; LOWELL
PIMLEY, in his official capacity as
the Acting Commissioner of the
United States Bureau of
Reclamation,

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Defendants.
14
IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order
15
and provide copies to all counsel.
16
DATED this 8th day of January 2015.
y
y
17
___________________________________
_______________________
_
SALVADOR MENDOZA JR.
ALVADOR MENDOZA, JR
A
United States District Judge

18
19
20

Q:\SMJ\Civil\2014\Wild Fish Conservancy v. Irving et al-0306\ord.deny.mot.dismiss.moot.lc2.docx

ORDER - 3