Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08031/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08031-0/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 1

The Plaintiffs lodged the $5,000 bond with the Court on April 7, 2008.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Center for Biological Diversity; Grand

Canyon Trust; and Sierra Club,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Richard Stahn, in his official capacity as

District Ranger for the Tusayan Ranger

District, on the Kaibab National Forest;

and United States Forest Service, an

agency in the U.S. Department of

Agriculture,

 Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. CV08-8031-PHX-MHM 

ORDER

The Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary

Injunction with this Court March 24, 2008. The Court held a hearing on April 4, 2008, at

which the TRO was granted, and later converted to a preliminary injunction at the request

and agreement of the parties. The intervenor, Vane Minerals, requested that the Court

impose a $100,000 bond; the Plaintiffs requested that there be no bond, or a nominal bond

only. The Court imposed upon the Plaintiffs a bond in the amount of $5,0001

, but ordered

the Plaintiffs to file a memorandum demonstrating why the bond should not be increased.

The Plaintiffs filed their memorandum on April 7, 2008, and Vane filed a response on April

Case 3:08-cv-08031-MHM Document 61 Filed 04/10/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

8, 2008. (Dkt. #55, 56). After consideration of the memorandum and response, the Court

issues the following order.

The Plaintiffs made a sufficient showing of the potential harm to their interests if a

substantial bond were to be imposed. They highlight a long line of cases that have

consistently waived the bond requirement or imposed only a nominal bond in public interest

environmental litigation. See, e.g., Cal. ex. rel. Van De Kemp v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning

Agency, 766 F.2d 1319, 1319 (9th Cir. 1985) (no bond); Friends of the Earth v. Brinegar, 518

F.2d 322, 323 (9th Cir. 1975) ($1,000 bond); Natural Resources Defense Council v. Morton,

337 F. Supp. 167, 168-69 (D.D.C. 1971) ($100 bond); Environmental Defense Fund v. Corps

of Engineers, 331 F. Supp. 925, 927 (D.D.C. 1971) ($1 bond). 

The Plaintiffs also provided affidavits from directors of each of the Plaintiff

organizations, detailing the chilling impact that a substantial bond would have on the ability

of the organizations to pursue litigation and programs in the public interest. (Dkt. #55

Exhibits 2-4).

Vane’s response to the Plaintiffs’ memorandum relies heavily on Save Our Sonoran,

Inc. v. Flowers to support its contention that the bond should be increased. 408 F.3d 1113

(9th Cir. 2005). It asserts that the Flowers case stands for the proposition that the Ninth

Circuit “imposes a burden on the public interest group to demonstrate that a particular bond

amount would cause undue hardship.” (Dkt. #56). The Court disagrees with Vane’s reading

of the case, but finds that the Plaintiffs have, in any event, made such a showing.

Furthermore, Vane does not attempt to rebut or distinguish the cases cited by the Plaintiff

that impose nominal or no bond on public interest Plaintiffs. In fact, the Flowers opinion on

which Vane relies confirms this principle, stating, “the legal proposition urged by [the

defendant] would contradict our long-standing precedent that requiring nominal bonds is

perfectly proper in public interest litigation.” Flowers, 408 F.3d at 1126. 

The Plaintiffs requested that the Court consider reducing the bond. While the Court

is persuaded that a nominal bond is appropriate in this case, in light of the fact that the three

Case 3:08-cv-08031-MHM Document 61 Filed 04/10/08 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

Plaintiffs can apportion the bond among themselves, the Court will leave the $5,000 bond

undisturbed. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the bond be set at $5,000. 

DATED this 10th day of April, 2008.

Case 3:08-cv-08031-MHM Document 61 Filed 04/10/08 Page 3 of 3