From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Center for Biological Diversity v. Export-Import Bank of the United States

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, Oakland Division
Aug 27, 2014
4:12-cv-6325 SBA (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2014)

Opinion

          Sarah Uhlemann, Center for Biological Diversity, Seattle, WA, Brendan Cummings, Center for Biological Diversity, Joshua Tree, CA, Miyoko Sakashita, Center for Biological Diversity, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiffs

          SAM HIRSCH, Acting Assistant Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division, MEREDITH L. FLAX, Senior Trial Attorney, KRISTOFOR R. SWANSON, Trial Attorney, Natural Resources Section Washington, D.C., MELINDA HAAG, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, MICHAEL T. PYLE, Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Jose, CA, Attorneys for Defendants.


          JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED SCHEDULE

          SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, District Judge.

         In advance of the case management conference scheduled for August 27, 2014, the parties jointly submit this report on case management and proposed schedule:

         Procedural Posture

         On December 13, 2012, Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity, Pacific Environment, and Turtle Island Restoration Network filed the above-captioned action against Defendants Export-Import Bank of the United States and Fred P. Hochberg, in his official capacity as Bank Chairman and President. After the Court denied Defendants' motion to transfer venue, Plaintiffs amended their complaint on October 4, 2013. Plaintiffs allege that Bank funding for two natural gas projects violated the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"), the National Historic Preservation Act ("NHPA"), and the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs also separately allege Defendants have violated the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA").

         On November 12, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' ESA claim but did not move to dismiss the NHPA or FOIA claims. On August 12, 2014, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' ESA claim and provided Plaintiffs 21 days to amend their complaint. ECF No. 62. Plaintiffs intend to amend their complaint.

         Additionally, during the pendency of the motion to dismiss, the parties conferred regarding the administrative record, and Defendants filed a supplemented/amended administrative record on May 29, 2014. ECF Nos. 54; 55. On May 30, 2014, the parties submitted a Joint Proposed Schedule and Stipulation and committed to propose a summary judgment briefing schedule within 10 days of the Court's order granting or denying Defendants' motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 57. The Court approved that proposal on June 2, 2014. ECF No. 59. In light of Plaintiffs' stated intention to file an amended complaint, however, the parties are not prepared to propose a summary judgment or other schedule until the amended complaint has been filed and Defendants have reviewed the amendment and determined how to respond.

         Proposed Schedule

         Accordingly, the parties propose the following schedule:

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Center for Biological Diversity v. Export-Import Bank of the United States

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, Oakland Division
Aug 27, 2014
4:12-cv-6325 SBA (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2014)
Case details for

Center for Biological Diversity v. Export-Import Bank of the United States

Case Details

Full title:CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EXPORT-IMPORT BANK…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, Oakland Division

Date published: Aug 27, 2014

Citations

4:12-cv-6325 SBA (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2014)