Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00068/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00068-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 05:0701 Maritime Subsidy Board

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFF ANDERSON; BRET ADEE; DAVID

HACKENBERG; LUCAS CRISWELL;

GAIL FULLER; CENTER FOR FOOD

SAFETY; AMERICAN BIRD

CONSERVANCY; PESTICIDE ACTION

NETWORK NORTH AMERICA;

POLLINATOR STEWARDSHIP

COUNCIL,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

GINA MCCARTHY; ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Defendants. /

No. C 16-00068 WHA

ORDER RE MOTION FOR

CLARIFICATION

Defendants have made a motion for “clarification” regarding the order denying

dismissal. Putting aside the procedural propriety of such a motion, defendants raise a fair point,

namely that the Court’s order on the motion to dismiss failed to expressly come to grips with

that part of the motion directed at the “failure to act” claim for relief. Instead, the order dealt

principally with the “final agency action” issue. Nevertheless, the parties are directed to

address all of the issues in the upcoming summary judgment motion. If an error was committed

by the

Case 3:16-cv-00068-WHA Document 74 Filed 07/14/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Judge, no harm will be done in postponing resolution of that issue until summary judgment is

vacated. The hearing on the motion for clarification is vacated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 14, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-00068-WHA Document 74 Filed 07/14/16 Page 2 of 2