Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00075/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00075-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 16:1538 Endangered Species Act

---

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

TUCSON HERPETOLOGICAL

SOCIETY; DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE;

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL

DIVERSITY; HORNED LIZARD

CONSERVATION SOCIETY; SIERRA

CLUB; DR. WENDY HODGES; and DR.

FRANCIS ALLAN MUTH, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

GALE NORTON, in her official capacity

of Secretary of the Interior; DALE HALL,

in his official capacity of Director of the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-0075-PHX-NVW

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

Case 2:04-cv-00075-NVW Document 69 Filed 11/17/05 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 -

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.

DATED this 17th day of November, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-00075-NVW Document 69 Filed 11/17/05 Page 2 of 2