Opinion
No. CV-04-0075-PHX-NVW.
November 17, 2005
MEMORANDUM
The court has this day entered a final Judgment in this action. This memorandum addresses some of the disputes between the parties over the form of judgment to forestall wrong inferences from the omission of some language from the Judgment.
Plaintiffs request judgment language that additional public comment be allowed and that the determination on remand be made on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. The court's omission of such language is not a determination on either issue. The parties' motions and briefs did not address these issues on remand. Moreover, the Defendants must comply with other applicable law in the proceedings on remand, whether or not reiterated in the Judgment. The Defendants are charged with complying with applicable law, and if they err in judging what that is, they may be answerable for it in the future. At this time, however, the dispute is too contingent to require judgment language.
Similarly, the Defendants request language that, if the Fish and Wildlife Service is unable to make a final determination by April 30, 2006, it shall so state, perhaps implying that that would be a sufficient compliance with the Judgment. The Judgment as entered requires final action by April 30, 2006. However, if events should leave the Defendants unable to comply with that obligation despite their diligence, they are not precluded from seeking relief from that part of the Judgment upon a proper showing at that time.