Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01144/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01144-7/pdf.json

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

---

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 CALIFORNIA

CITIZENS FOR BETTER FORESTRY, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. C 05-1144 PJH

v.

U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE, et al.,

Defendants,

and

AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASSN.,

et al.,

Defendants-Intervenors.

___________________________________/

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

and

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

No. C 04-4512 PJH

 v. AMENDED JUDGMENT

MIKE JOHANNS, Secretary, United States 

Department of Agriculture, in his official 

capacity, et al., 

Defendants,

and

AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASSN.,

et al.,

Defendants-Intervenors. /

Case 4:05-cv-01144-PJH Document 81 Filed 03/30/07 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

This action came before the court and the issues having been duly heard and

considered and decisions having been fully rendered in accordance with this court’s

October 14, 2005 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment and/or Judgment on the Pleadings in Case No. 04-4512 PJH;

this court’s April 21, 2006 Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment and/or Judgment on the Pleadings in Case No. 05-1144 PJH; and 

this court’s March 30, 2007 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs’

Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’

Motion for Summary Judgment in both cases, 

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs and

Plaintiff-Intervenor and against Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors on Claims Three,

Four, and Five in Case No. 04-4512 PJH, and Claims One, Two, Three, and Ten in Case

No. 05-1144 PJH;

and in favor of Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors and against Plaintiffs and

Plaintiff-Intervenor on Claims One and Two in Case No. 04-4512 PJH, and Claims Four,

Five, Six, Seven, Eight, and Nine in Case No. 05-1144 PJH.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECLARED that the USDA violated the notice and

comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) in promulgating the

2005 Rule; that the USDA violated the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) by

invoking the particular categorical exclusion at issue here and because the 2005 Rule may

have significant effects on the environment; and that the USDA violated the Endangered

Species Act (“ESA”) in failing to consult and/or prepare any type of biological analysis in

conjunction with the 2005 Rule. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the USDA is ENJOINED

from implementing and/or utilizing the 2005 Rule until it has fully complied with the pertinent

statutes. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01144-PJH Document 81 Filed 03/30/07 Page 2 of 2