Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00407/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00407-77/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4321 Review of Agency Action-Environment

---

DIEPENBROCK 

ELKIN LLP

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

Order on Jurisdiction to Consider Injunctive Relief Petition re Fall X2 Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – FRESNO DIVISION 

THE DELTA SMELT CASES 

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA 

WATER AUTHORITY, et al. v. 

SALAZAR, et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-407) 

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-407-OWW-DLB 

1:09-cv-422-OWW-DLB 

1:09-cv-631-OWW-DLB 

1:09-cv-892-OWW-GSA 

PARTIALLY CONSOLIDATED WITH: 

1:09-cv-480-OWW-GSA 

ORDER ON JURISDICTION TO 

CONSIDER PLAINTIFFS’ INJUNCTIVE 

RELIEF PETITION RE FALL X2 ACTION

STATE WATER CONTRACTORS v. 

SALAZAR, et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-422) 

COALITION FOR A SUSTAINABLE 

DELTA, et al. v. UNITED STATES FISH 

AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, et al. 

(Case No. 1:09-cv-480) 

METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT v. 

UNITED STATES FISH & WILDLIFE 

SERVICE, et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-631) 

STEWART & JASPER ORCHARDS, et 

al. v. UNITED STATES FISH AND 

WILDLIFE SERVICE, et al. 

Case No. 1:09-cv-892) 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 957 Filed 07/11/11 Page 1 of 2
DIEPENBROCK 

ELKIN LLP

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

-1-

Order on Jurisdiction to Consider Injunctive Relief Petition re Fall X2 Action

The Court has read and considered the memoranda of points and authorities and other 

documents filed in support of and in opposition to the jurisdiction of the Court to consider the 

motion for injunctive relief brought by Plaintiffs San Luis & Delta Mendota Water Authority, 

Westlands Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, State Water 

Contractors, Kern County Water Agency, and Coalition for a Sustainable Delta, and joined in by 

Plaintiff-in-Intervention the California Department of Water Resources (“DWR”), regarding 

Action 4 (the “Fall X2 Action”) of the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative of the 2008 Delta 

Smelt Biological Opinion. The Court has heard and considered the arguments of counsel at the 

hearing on this matter held on June 20, 2010. 

On June 24, 2011, the Court filed its Memorandum Decision Re Jurisdiction to Consider 

Plaintiffs’ Injunctive Relief Petition re Fall X2 Action (Doc. 930). The June 24, 2011 

memorandum decision constitutes the statement of reasons for the Court’s ruling. For the 

reasons more fully explained in the Court’s June 24, 2011 memorandum decision, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED: 

(A) The District Court has jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief 

against the Fall X2 Action; and 

(B) Briefing and the hearing shall proceed as ordered in the Court’s June 3, 2011 

Scheduling Order (Doc. 895). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _July 8, 2011_______ /s/ OLIVER W. WANGER 

Honorable Oliver W. Wanger 

United States District Judge 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 957 Filed 07/11/11 Page 2 of 2