Friends of Endangered Species, Inc. v. Jantzen

15 Citing cases

  1. Off-Road Business Ass'n v. U.S. Dept. of Interior

    Civil No: 03 CV 1199-B(POR) (S.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2006)   Cited 1 times

    Where a district court reviews an administrative decision, the application of summary judgment is somewhat altered. See Friends of Endangered Species, Inc. v. Jantzen, 589 F.Supp. 113, 117-118 (N.D. Cal. 1984). The Court reviews the decision under the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") to ensure it was not "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law."

  2. Environment Now! v. Espy

    877 F. Supp. 1397 (E.D. Cal. 1994)   Cited 16 times
    In Environment Now! v. Espy, 877 F. Supp. 1397, 1404 (E.D. Cal. 1994), this district permitted expert declarations in order to highlight perceived deficiencies in the environmental review process and to explain and assist understanding the complex and technical subject matter underlying the agency decision at issue.

    The Federal Defendants argue the Fish timber sale will not have a significant impact on spotted owls, because the location does not support an owl population, is unsuitable to do so, and is not in an area important to owl viability. Although this case was recently filed, the Federal Defendants argue that summary judgment is appropriate because the case is limited to the administrative record, relying on Friends of Endangered Species, Inc. v. Jantzen, 589 F. Supp. 113 (N.D.Cal. 1984), aff'd, 760 F.2d 976 (9th Cir. 1985). The Friends court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's NEPA claim, finding that no genuine issue of fact existed that an EIS must be prepared:

  3. Assiniboine Sioux Tribes v. Bd. of Oil Gas

    792 F.2d 782 (9th Cir. 1986)   Cited 106 times
    Holding that proof that agency did not independently review actions of delegated party would demonstrate unlawful delegation

    Therefore, if at trial, the Tribes could prove that the Cooperative Agreement has resulted in BLM approval of State Board orders without meaningful independent review, then its procedures would constitute an unlawful delegation of authority. Cf. Save our Wetlands v. Sands, 711 F.2d 634, 641-43 (5th Cir. 1983) (construing the requirements imposed upon agencies under the National Environmental Policy Act to consider environmental consequences of their actions and holding that an agency does not satisfy those requirements if it "reflexively rubber-stamps" reports prepared by others); Sierra Club v. Lynn, 502 F.2d 43, 59 (5th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 994, 95 S.Ct. 2001, 44 L.Ed.2d 484 (1975) (public or private entities may participate in preparation of environmental impact reports, as long as federal agency does not abdicate responsibilities and rubberstamp their work product); Friends of Endangered Species, Inc. v. Jantzen, 589 F. Supp. 113, 118-19 (N.D.Cal. 1984), aff'd, 760 F.2d 976 (9th Cir. 1985) (federal agency's delegation of environmental research to a third party is impermissible if agency fails to adequately review the work). Specifically, the Tribes alleged in their motion and memorandum in support of a preliminary injunction that the BLM has no meaningful administrative record before it at the time it renders a decision, and that State Board orders are approved en mass, without adequate scrutiny.

  4. Friends of Endangered Species, Inc. v. Jantzen

    760 F.2d 976 (9th Cir. 1985)   Cited 172 times
    Holding that, under NEPA, court not required to resolve disagreements among scientists as to methodology

    Friends of Endangered Species, Inc. (Friends) appeals from a summary judgment in favor of public and private appellees. Friends had challenged a decision of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service) to issue a permit that authorized the "taking" of Mission Blue butterflies from areas of the San Bruno Mountain. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the district court's order, 589 F. Supp. 113, granting summary judgment to appellees. The appellees are Robert A. Jantzen, Director, United States Fish and Wildlife Service; the County of San Mateo; Daly City; the City of Brisbane; the City of South San Francisco; Visitacion Associates; W.W. Dean and Associates, Inc.; Presley of Northern California, Inc.; and Foxhall Investment, Ltd.

  5. Kalispel Tribe of Indians v. U.S. Dep't of Interior

    No. 2:17-CV-0138-WFN (E.D. Wash. Jul. 11, 2019)

    The plaintiff must show the agency actually disregarded its role by failing to review adequately the study it commissioned." Friends of Endangered Species, Inc. v. Jantzen, 589 F. Supp. 113, 119 (N.D. Cal. 1984), aff'd, 760 F.2d 976 (9th Cir. 1985). The administrative record reflects that the Department reviewed the independent expert's conclusions.

  6. Grill v. Quinn

    No. 2:10-cv-0757 GEB GGH PS (E.D. Cal. Jun. 17, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    I. Administrative Procedure Act On review of an administrative action, the court does not use the typical summary judgment standard of review in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Friends of Endangered Species, Inc. v. Jantzen, 589 F.Supp. 113, 118 (N.D.Cal.1984); accord Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F.Supp. 96, 105 (D.D.C.1995). The Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") provides the authority for review of agency decisions under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") and the National Forest Management Act ("NFMA").

  7. SLPR, LLC v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

    CASE NO. 06 CV 1327 MMA (POR) (S.D. Cal. May. 2, 2011)   Cited 2 times

    A motion for summary judgment is an appropriate vehicle to review an administrative action even though the Court does not use the standard of review in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Friends of Endangered Species, Inc. v. Jantzen, 589 F. Supp. 113, 118 (N.D. Cal. 1984); accord Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F. Supp. 96, 105 (D.D.C. 1995).

  8. Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations v. Gutierrez

    606 F. Supp. 2d 1122 (E.D. Cal. 2008)   Cited 20 times
    Finding a biological opinion failed to consider the increasing effects of climate change by relying "on past hydrology and temperature models" that assumed constant environmental conditions

    Since judicial review under the APA is generally limited to the administrative record, summary judgment is an appropriate procedure. See, e.g., Friends of Endangered Species v. Jantzen, 589 F.Supp. 113, 118 (N.D.Cal. 1984), aff'd, 760 F.2d 976 (9th Cir. 1985). This is a challenge to the lawfulness of a biological opinion brought under the ESA and the APA. Agency decisions made under the ESA are governed by the APA, which requires that the agency action be upheld unless it is found to be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law," or "without observance of procedure required by law."

  9. Southwest Center for Biological Div. v. Bartel

    470 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (S.D. Cal. 2006)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding the agency's no jeopardy conclusion unreasonable where the incidental take authorized "an additional 12% of habitat loss" without explanation

    "Because ESA contains no internal standard of review, section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. ยง 706, governs review of the Secretary's actions." Village of False Pass v. Clark, 733 F.2d 605, 609 (9th Cir. 1984); Friends of Endangered Species v. Jantzen, 589 F. Supp. 113, 118 (N.D. Cal. 1984) (summary judgment is appropriate vehicle to review administrative action), aff'd, 760 F.2d 976 (9th Cir. 1985). Agency decisions cannot be inconsistent with the governing statute.

  10. Mountaineers v. U.S. Forest Service

    445 F. Supp. 2d 1235 (W.D. Wash. 2006)

    Thus, when causes of action arise from a complete administrative record, summary judgment is appropriate. See, e.g., National Audubon Soc. v. Butler, 160 F. Supp. 2d 1180, 1188 (W.D. Wash. 2001); Friends of Endangered Species v. Jantzen, 589 F. Supp. 113, 118 (N.D. Cal. 1984). This necessitates that the Court examine whether defendants' failure to prepare an EIS for the Mad River Trail Project and related actions violates NEPA as a matter of law.