Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Columbia Riverkeeper v. U.S. Coast Guard

Columbia Riverkeeper v. U.S. Coast Guard - 8/5/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 12-73385. The Panel dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction a petition for review of the U.S. Coast Guard's issuance of a letter of recommendation to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regarding the suitability of the Columbia River for vessel traffic associated with a proposed liquified gas facility and pipeline.
 

Monday, August 4, 2014

Belle Company, L.L.C., et al v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Belle Company, L.L.C., et al v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - 7/30/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Firth Circuit, Case No. 13-30262. Plaintiff owns property and Plaintiff-Appellant Kent Recycling, L.L.C. has an option to purchase the property in the event that it can be used as a solid-waste landfill. In February 2012, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a jurisdictional determination ("JD") stating that the property contains wetlands that are subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act. Belle and Kent sued, alleging that the JD is unlawful and should be set aside. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter urisdiction,  concluding that the JD is not "final agency action" and therefore is not reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Panel affirmed.
 

Vaughn Leroy Meyer v. JinkoSolar Holding Co.

Vaughn Leroy Meyer v. JinkoSolar Holding Co. - 7/31/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Case No. 13-616. The Panel dismissed a complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws and vacated the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the failure to disclose ongoing serious pollution problems rendered misleading statements describing measures taken to comply with Chinese environmental regulations.
 

State of Arizona v. Raytheon Co.

State of Arizona v. Raytheon Co. - 8/1/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 12-15691. In a mixed, split decision, the panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's order approving consent decrees in an action under CERCLA. In part the Panel reaffirm that a district court has an "obligation to independently scrutinize the terms of [such agreements]," by, inter alia, comparing "the proportion of total projected costs to be paid by the [settling parties] with the proportion of liability attributable to them."
 

People of the State of California v. US Department of the Interior

People of the State of California v. US Department of the Interior - 8/1/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 12-55856, 12-55956. The panel amended its opinion and affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of federal defendants and intervenor water districts re: an EIS prepared by the Secretary of the Interior on the effects of water transfer agreements on the Salton Sea in southern California. The petition for rehearing was denied and the petition for rehearing en banc was rejected.
 

Monday, July 28, 2014

NRDC v. US FDA

NRDC v. US FDA - 7/23/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Case No. 12-2106. Defendants, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) challenge the district court's conclusion that FDA is required to proceed with hearings to determine whether to withdraw approval for the use of penicillin and tetracyclines in animal feed and that its decision denying two citizen petitions urging it to hold such hearings was arbitrary or capricious. In a split decision, with a lengthy dissent, the Majority reversed the district court decision and remanded to the district court with instructions to deny the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, grant the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and dismiss the action.
 

WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. EPA

WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. EPA - 7/23/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, Case No. 13-9524. WildEarth Guardians filed a petition for review of the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to reduce regional haze from the Four Corners Power Plant on the Navajo Reservation in northwestern New Mexico; saying EPA did not consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service as required under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Panel denied the petition saying it could not create a duty to consult under the ESA because it would have required the EPA to exceed the clearly delineated boundaries of the FIP.