Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00378/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00378-0/pdf.json

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

---

In December 2004, the City of Troy submitted an Environmental Assessment of 1

the Project to the FAA. On August 15, 2005, the FAA issued a Finding of No Significant

Impact (“FONSI”) with respect to the project's effect on the quality of the human

environment. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ASSOCIATION OF CITIZENS TO )

PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE )

ENVIRONMENT OF THE )

OAK GROVE COMMUNITY, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:07-cv-378-MEF

) 

UNITED STATES FEDERAL )

AVIATION ADMINISTRATION et al., )

)

Defendants. )

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND O R D E R

This cause is presently before the Court on Defendant United States Federal Aviation

Administration's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 14). Plaintiff claims that the FAA violated the

Administrative Procedures Act by not following its own environmental regulations with its

approval of a proposed improvement project at the Troy Municipal Airport in Troy,

Alabama. Complaint ¶ 1 (Doc. # 1). 

1

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss argues that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction

over Plaintiff's claims. The Court agrees. 

The United States Courts of Appeal have exclusive subject matter jurisdiction to

Case 2:07-cv-00378-MEF-SRW Document 23 Filed 09/04/07 Page 1 of 2
2

review most FAA orders. 49 U.S.C. § 46110; City of Oxford v. FAA, 428 F.3d 1346 (11th

Cir. 2005). Only final orders are reviewable. Americopters, LLC v. FAA, 441 F.3d 726, 735

(9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, if the FONSI was a final order, then the United States Court of

Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit would have exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over

Plaintiff's claims. The Administrative Procedures Act grants jurisdiction to a District Court

only when a final order has been issued by an agency. 5 U.S.C. § 704; Americopters, LLC,

441 F.3d at 735. Even if the FONSI was not a final order, then this Court would still lack

subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. Regardless of whether the FONSI was a

final order, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

(1) The Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 14) is GRANTED.

(2) All of the Plaintiff’s claims in the present action are due to be and hereby are

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)

for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. 

A separate final judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum

Opinion and Order.

DONE this 4th day of September, 2007.

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00378-MEF-SRW Document 23 Filed 09/04/07 Page 2 of 2