Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08207/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08207-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 30:1276 Interior: Review of Agency Action

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Center for Biological Diversity; Grand

Canyon Trust; Sierra Club; and Kaibab

Band of Paiute Indians, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior;

United States Bureau of Land

Management; Denison Arizona Strip,

LLC; and Denison Mines (USA) Corp., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-8207-PCT-DGC

ORDER

Arizona 1 Mine is a uranium mine located near Grand Canyon National Park.

Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the federal Defendants have violated environmental laws in

connection with Arizona 1 Mine, and request an injunction directing mine operations to

cease. Dkt. #17. Denison Arizona Strip, LLC and Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (collectively,

“Denison”) have intervened as defendants on the ground that they own unpatented claims at

Arizona 1 Mine and conduct operations pursuant to a plan issued by Defendant BLM. See

Dkt. ##19, 31. 

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint pursuant

to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #49. Plaintiffs seek to more

accurately describe the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians and to correct a factual error regarding

where the California condor was reintroduced in 1996. Id. at 2. No opposition has been

filed, and the time for doing so has expired. See LRCiv 7.2(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).

Case 3:09-cv-08207-DGC Document 67 Filed 06/08/10 Page 1 of 2
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

- 2 -

Rule 15 makes clear that the Court “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice

so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The policy in favor of leave to amend must not only

be heeded by the Court, see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962), it must also be

applied with extreme liberality, see Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d

708, 880 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court, in the interest of justice, will grant Plaintiffs’ motion

for leave to file a second amended complaint. See Neuendorf v. Unknown Party, No. CV 10-

124-PHX-RCB (DKD), 2010 WL 1743198, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 27, 2010).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (Dkt. #49) is

granted.

2. The Clerk is directed to filed the lodged proposed second amended complaint

(Dkt. #50).

DATED this 8th day of June, 2010.

Case 3:09-cv-08207-DGC Document 67 Filed 06/08/10 Page 2 of 2