Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04987/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04987-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

NOT FOR CITATION 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROUND VALLEY INDIAN TRIBES OF 

CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-04987-JSW 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART CALTRANS 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 

AND CONTINUING CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

Re: Dkt. No. 69 

Now before the Court for consideration is the motion to dismiss filed by the California 

Department of Transportation and Malcolm Dougherty (collectively the “Caltrans Defendants”). 

The Court has considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, 

and it finds the Caltrans Defendants’ motion suitable for disposition without oral argument. See 

N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The Court VACATES the hearing on this motion, which is scheduled for 

February 3, 2017, and it HEREBY GRANTS, IN PART, AND DENIES, IN PART, the Caltrans 

Defendants’ motion. 

It is FURTHER ORDERED that in light of the pending motion to dismiss filed by United 

States Department of Transportation, Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx, the Federal 

Highway Administration (“FHWA”), and FHWA Administrator Gregory G. Nadeau (collectively 

“the Federal Defendants”), which shall remain on calendar on February 3, 2017 at 9:00 a.m., the 

Court CONTINUES the case management conference scheduled for February 3, 2017 at 11:00 

a.m. to February 17, 2017, at 11:00 a.m. The parties shall submit a joint case management 

conference statement on or before February 10, 2017. 

Case 4:15-cv-04987-JSW Document 84 Filed 01/23/17 Page 1 of 5
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

BACKGROUND 

This litigation arises out of a proposed highway project around the community of Willits, 

California (the “Willits Bypass Project”). On October 30, 2016, Plaintiffs, the Coyote Valley 

Band of Pomo Indians of California (“Coyote Valley”) and the Round Valley Indian Tribes of 

California (“Round Valley”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”), filed the original complaint in this case. 

(Dkt. No. 1.) In that complaint, Plaintiffs asserted claims against the Caltrans Defendants for 

alleged violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. sections 4321, 

et seq., the National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”), 54 U.S.C. sections 300101, set seq., 

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. section 303(c) (the “Section 4(f) 

claim”), and Section 18(a) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act, 23 U.S.C. section 138 (the “Section 

18(a) claim”). The Caltrans Defendants answered the Complaint on January 11, 2016. (Dkt. No. 

26.) 

On August 2, 2016, the Court granted a motion to dismiss filed by the Federal Defendants. 

(Dkt. 58, Order Granting Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“August 2 Order”).) The Court 

gave Plaintiffs leave to amend, and it directed them to specifically identify which defendant acted, 

or failed to act, in a particular manner. (Id. at 7:1-10, 8:11-16.) 

On August 24, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).1 Plaintiffs 

continue to allege that all Defendants failed to properly identify and protect their “ancestral, 

sacred, cultural, and archeological sites and resources” and destroyed certain sites during the 

construction of the Willits Bypass Project. (See, e.g, FAC ¶¶ 1, 45-46, 211.) Plaintiffs also allege 

that all Defendants failed to “(a) adequately address the direct, indirect, and cumulative cultural, 

environmental, and historic impacts of the Willits Bypass Project; (b) identify and finalize the 

details of the mitigation plan or its environmental and cultural impacts; and (c) commit to 

necessary mitigation measures.” (Id. ¶ 8.) 

 

1

 The Court ordered Plaintiffs to file their FAC by August 23, 2016. Plaintiffs initially filed 

the FAC on August 24, 2016, and due to an incorrect case number were required to re-file the 

document. Plaintiffs filed the corrected FAC on August 26, 2016. Because the Caltrans 

Defendants have not demonstrated any prejudice as a result of the delay in filing the FAC, the 

Court accepts the FAC. 

Case 4:15-cv-04987-JSW Document 84 Filed 01/23/17 Page 2 of 5
3 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

The Court shall address additional facts as necessary in its analysis. 

ANALYSIS 

A. The Court Denies the Motion to Dismiss Based on Failure to Comply with Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and/or the Court’s Order. 

The Caltrans Defendants move to dismiss the FAC pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 8 and 41(b).2 They argue that Plaintiffs’ FAC fails to comply with Rule 8’s 

requirement to set forth a short and plain statement of their claims. They also argue Plaintiffs 

failed to comply with the Court’s August 2 Order, in which the Court directed Plaintiffs not to 

refer to Defendants collectively in an FAC. In order to determine whether dismissal under Rule 

41(b) is appropriate, the Court must consider “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 

litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) 

the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less 

drastic alternatives.” Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). The 

parties have not addressed these factors in their briefs. 

The FAC is lengthy and does include citations to statutes or case references that might be 

more appropriately cited in a legal brief, rather than a pleading. However, the allegations are not 

“argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 

F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). Nor is the FAC “verbose, confusing and conclusory.” Nevijel v. 

North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court finds the FAC satisfies 

the requirements of Rule 8. 

Plaintiffs also have made clear distinctions between the Defendants in other portions of the 

FAC. (See, e.g., FAC ¶¶ 91, 104, 117, 161, 163.) Plaintiffs do include some collective references 

to “Defendants,” but they argue that any such mention is “to describe conduct that Plaintiffs 

believe, in good faith, that all of the Defendants jointly participated[.]” (Dkt. No. 73, Opp. Br. at 

 

2

 In the alternative, the Caltrans Defendants seek relief under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(f) and ask the Court to strike all the references to “Defendants.” The Court finds 

those references are neither immaterial nor impertinent. It therefore DENIES, IN PART, the 

Caltrans Defendants’ alternative motion to strike. 

Case 4:15-cv-04987-JSW Document 84 Filed 01/23/17 Page 3 of 5
4 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

5:8-10.) The Court concludes Plaintiffs have complied with its directives. In addition, to the 

extent Plaintiffs continue to include references to “Defendants” collectively, the Court has 

considered the factors set forth in Yourish, and it finds they weigh against dismissal. 

With respect to public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the Court’s need to 

manage its docket, and the public policy in resolving cases on their merits, this case is in the early 

phases of the litigation, and it has not yet “consumed large amounts of the court’s time[.]” Ferdik 

v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal under Rule 41(b) where 

“case dragged on for over a year and a half before it finally was dismissed”). In addition, this was 

Plaintiffs first amendment, which distinguishes this case from the McHenry case, in which the 

plaintiff had been granted several opportunities to amend and continued to violate the court’s 

directive to make his complaint more concise and less argumentative. See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 

1178-79. 

There also are less drastic alternatives available to the Court than dismissal. For example, 

the Court could require the Plaintiffs to file a further amended complaint that expressly states that 

the Defendants were acting jointly when they are referenced collectively. However, the Court 

concludes the Plaintiffs have made sufficient distinctions among and between the Defendants to 

put the Caltrans Defendants on notice of the conduct that gives rise to Plaintiffs’ claims against 

them. For that same reason, the Court concludes the Caltrans Defendants have not articulated any 

specific prejudice they have suffered because Plaintiffs did not, in all cases, refer to a particular 

agency or individual. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Caltrans Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to 

comply with Rule 8 and with the August 2 Order. 

B. The Court Grants the Caltrans Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Prayer for 

Damages. 

The Caltrans Defendants also move to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for damages on the basis 

that their claim for damages is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Plaintiffs concede 

that, as drafted, the claim for damages is not viable. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS, IN PART, 

Caltrans’ motion on this basis. Plaintiffs argue that they could assert a viable claim for damages 

Case 4:15-cv-04987-JSW Document 84 Filed 01/23/17 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

und

Ca

to a

onc

cla

wo

for

Ca

com

for

Da

 

3

 

No

for

der the Fede

ltrans would

amend. How

ce, the Court

aim against th

ould be viabl

For the 

r failure to co

ltrans’ motio

mplaint to as

r leave to do 

IT IS S

ated: January

 

This ca

o. 12-cv-0217

r terminal dig

eral Torts Cla

d be subject t

wever, becau

t concludes P

he Caltrans D

le in this cas

foregoing re

omply with R

on to strike t

ssert a claim

so by no lat

SO ORDER

y 23, 2017 

 

ase is related 

72-JSW. Th

git 2. 

aims Act (“F

to the FTCA

use the Cour

Plaintiffs sh

Defendants u

e. 

easons, the C

Rule 8 or wi

the prayer fo

m for damage

ter than Febr

RED. 

 

to Center fo

herefore, the

5

FTCA”) agai

A. In general

rt already gra

ould be requ

under the FT

CONC

Court DENIE

ith the Court

or damages. 

es against the

ruary 17, 201

___

JEF

Un

or Biologica

 parties mus

inst Caltrans

l, the Court 

anted Plainti

uired to file m

TCA and to 

CLUSION

ES the Caltr

t’s August 2

 If Plaintiffs

e Caltrans D

17.3 

__________

FFREY S. W

nited States D

l Diversity v

st notice mot

s. Plaintiffs 

should be lib

iffs leave to 

motion for le

show why a

rans Defenda

, 2016 Orde

s wish to file

Defendants, th

___________

WHITE 

District Judg

v. Federal H

tions for hea

have not exp

beral in gran

amend their

eave to amen

a prayer for d

ants’ motion

r. The Cour

e a second am

hey must file

__________

ge 

Highway Adm

arings on dat

plained how

nting leave 

r claims 

nd to add a 

damages 

n to dismiss 

rt GRANTS

mended 

e a motion 

________ 

ministration,

tes available

w

Case 4:15-cv-04987-JSW Document 84 Filed 01/23/17 Page 5 of 5