Case ID: f3d_691/html/1151-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Judge WALLACE. WALLACE, Circuit Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The SAVE THE PEAKS COALITION; Kristin Huisinga; Clayson Benally; Sylvan Grey; Don Fanning; Jeneda Benally; Frederica Hall; Berta Benally; Rachel Tso; Lisa Tso; Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE; Joseph P. Stringer, Acting Forest Supervisor for the Coconino National Forest, Defendants-Appellees, Arizona Snowbowl Resort LP, Intervenor-Defendants-Appellee.
    No. 10-17896.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Aug. 28, 2012.
    Howard M. Shanker, The Shanker Law Firm, PLC, Tempe, AZ, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Lane N. McFadden, Esquire, Cynthia S. Huber, Esquire, John Tustin, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Michael A. Johns, USPX — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
    John J. Egbert, Paul G. Johnson, Esquire, Michael J. O’Connor, Jennings Strouss & Salmon, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, Dominic Francis Perella, Esquire, Andrew L. Spielman, Esquire, Catherine Emily Stetson, Esquire, Hogan Lovells US, LLP, Washington, DC, for Intervenor-Defendants-Appellee.
    D.C. No. 3:09-cv-08163-MHN, District of Arizona, Phoenix.
    Before: J. CLIFFORD WALLACE, JOHN T. NOONAN, and MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judges.
   Order; Dissent by

Judge WALLACE.

ORDER

Our order filed on June 21, 2012 (ECF No. 77) is hereby amended. All portions of the order, except the portion denying Intervenor-Defendanb-Appellee Arizona Snowbowl Resort Limited Partnership’s (Snowbowl) motion for attorney’s fees, are withdrawn, Snowbowl’s motion for costs is denied, and our referral of the order to the Appellate Commissioner is withdrawn.

In light of these amendments, Attorney Plaintiffs’/Appellants Save the Peaks Coalitions’ July 5, 2012 Petition for Rehearing En Banc is denied, as moot.

WALLACE, Circuit Judge,

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. I would impose sanctions on Shanker for “grossly abuspng] the judicial process by strategically holding back claims that could have, and should have, been asserted in the first lawsuit (and would have been decided earlier but for counsel’s procedural errors in raising those claims).” Save the Peaks Coal. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 669 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir.2012).