Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01303/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01303-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4332 Environmental Policy - Coop of Agency Reports

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF 

FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATIONS, and SAN 

FRANCISCO CRAB BOAT OWNERS 

ASSOCIATION, INC., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR, and UNITED STATES 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, 

 Defendants, 

 and 

WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT, SAN 

LUIS WATER DISTRICT, and PANOCHE 

WATER DISTRICT, 

 Defendant-Intervenors. 

CASE NO. 1:12-CV-01303-LJO-MJS

AMENDED JUDGMENT AFTER 

APPEAL AND REMAND

Pursuant to the remand instructions contained in the Amended Memorandum filed 

by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on July 25, 2016, [ECF No. 

102] this Court=s Memorandum of Decision and Order Re Cross Motions for Summary 

Judgment filed February 6, 2014, granting summary judgment in favor of defendants, 

[ECF No. 88] and the judgment entered thereon [ECF No. 89] (AOrder and Judgment@) are 

VACATED IN PART. For the reasons set forth in the remand instructions:

Case 1:12-cv-01303-LJO-MJS Document 109 Filed 08/30/16 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

(1) As to the First Claim for Relief in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint

(“FAC”), filed December 4, 2012 [ECF No. 47], Judgment is hereby entered:

a. In favor of Plaintiffs and against Federal Defendants and 

Defendant-Intervenors with respect to Plaintiffs’ claim that the

no-action alternative in Federal Defendants’ Environmental 

Assessment (“EA”) is unlawful; 

b. In favor of Plaintiffs and against Federal Defendants and 

Defendant-Intervenors with respect to Plaintiffs’ claim that 

Federal Defendants’ EA unlawfully fails to give full and 

meaningful consideration to an alternative reducing maximum 

contract quantities;

c. Against Plaintiffs and in favor of Federal Defendants and 

Defendant-Intervenors with respect to all other aspects of 

Plaintiffs’ First Claim for Relief in the FAC; 

(2) As to the Second Claim for Relief the FAC, Judgment is hereby 

entered against Plaintiffs and in favor of Federal Defendants and 

Defendant-Intervenors;

(3) Defendants are hereby directed to proceed in a manner consistent with 

the conclusions of the Amended Memorandum in any future EA for an 

interim contract renewal; and 

(4) This Court retains jurisdiction over Plaintiffs= claims for costs and 

attorneys= fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2412.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01303-LJO-MJS Document 109 Filed 08/30/16 Page 2 of 2