Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01395/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01395-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 30:181 Environment: Review of Agency Action

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA OAK FOUNDATION, et

al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE,

et al., 

Defendants.

CV-F-05-1395 OWW SMS

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

REQUEST TO SUSPEND FURTHER

BRIEFING AND HOLD THE CASE IN

ABEYANCE AND GRANTING

PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR A

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DOC.

21)

This case concerns the United States Forest Service’s

decision to approve the Larson Reforestation and Fuel Reduction

Project (the “Project”), which authorizes the use of certain

herbicides within the Stanislaus National Forest. Plaintiffs

challenge the action under the National Environmental Policy Act

(“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.; the National Forest

Management Act (“NFMA”), 16 U.S.C. § 472a(g); and the

Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 702.

Currently before the court is Defendants’ request to suspend

all briefing in this case until all appeals are completed in

another case that may be of precedential value. Defendants

contend that the rule set forth in the decision by the Ninth

Circuit panel in Earth Island Institute v. United States Forest

Case 1:05-cv-01395-LJO -SMS Document 24 Filed 08/23/06 Page 1 of 5
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

Defendants state that they will continue the “Brush 1

mastication contract,” which has already begun and to which

Plaintiffs do not object. (Doc. 21 at 3 n.1.) In their response

to the request for abeyance, Plaintiffs do not take issue with

separate treatment of this contract. (Doc. 22.)

2

Service (Earth Island), 442 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2006),

effectively disposes of the case in Plaintiffs’ favor. 

Consequently, Defendants urge that the court suspend briefing

until all appellate proceedings, which may eventually include en

banc rehearing by the Ninth Circuit and United States Supreme

Court review, are exhausted. Defendants state that “the

government will voluntarily refrain from implementing the

challenged decision and agrees to enter into a stipulation with

the Plaintiffs to that effect.” (Doc. 21 at 3:21-25.) 1

Defendants contend that Earth Island imposes burdensome new

requirements for undertakings such as the Project. Moreover,

they concede that the decision Plaintiffs challenge does not

satisfy the requirements the Ninth Circuit imposes in Earth

Island.

Plaintiffs oppose Defendants’ motion for an abeyance. 

Plaintiffs agree that Defendants’ decision does not meet the

requirements of Earth Island. Plaintiffs contend, however, that

Earth Island does not constitute new law, but rather merely

confirms a reading of NFMA that had been set forth by a district

court in Sierra Club v. Eubanks, 335 F. Supp. 2d. 1070 (E.D. Cal.

2004). Plaintiffs do not dispute Defendants’ contention that the

Ninth Circuit has not previously addressed these issues. 

Plaintiffs argue that, in any event, Earth Island is already

binding and that the court need not delay its proceedings to

Case 1:05-cv-01395-LJO -SMS Document 24 Filed 08/23/06 Page 2 of 5
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

allow Defendants to obtain more favorable precedent. Plaintiffs

also point out that many of their claims are unrelated to the

holding in Earth Island and so will not be affected by a reversal

in that case. Plaintiffs contend they are at least entitled to a

decision on the merits on the claims unrelated to Earth Island. 

Plaintiffs also question the timing of Defendants’ request

for abeyance. The Earth Island order was issued March 24, 2006,

but Defendants did not request abeyance until May 22, 2006, after

Plaintiffs had filed their opening brief. Plaintiffs argue that

a stay would unfairly allow Defendants months to review

Plaintiffs’ arguments before framing a reply when briefing

resumes.

For the pendency of the abeyance, Plaintiffs get what they

want: maintenance of the status quo without implementation of

the allegedly unlawful Project. Given that Defendants are

willing to maintain the status quo as Plaintiffs desire it, it

seems unnecessary to dedicate scarce court resources to rush to

make a decision, which may be affected, at least in material

part, by the outcome in Earth Island. It is not judicially

efficient to proceed in a piecemeal fashion to address the claims

that will be unaffected by Earth Island, if the use of herbicides

will be dictated by the outcome of the case. 

Plaintiffs request that, in the event that the court grants

an abeyance, it be coupled with an injunction barring Defendants

from implementing its decision while the matter is stayed. 

Defendants oppose a preliminary injunction. They contend that a

preliminary injunction is not warranted because, in its absence,

plaintiff will not suffer irreparable injury. See Ashcroft v.

Case 1:05-cv-01395-LJO -SMS Document 24 Filed 08/23/06 Page 3 of 5
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

4

American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U.S. 656, 666, 124 S. Ct.

2783, 159 L. Ed. 2d 690 (2004). 

Defendants’ undertaking presently to refrain from

implementing the challenged action affords only partial assurance

that the law will not be violated. Environmental harm caused by

application of an unlawful rule creates irreparable injury. 

Sierra Club v. United States Forest Service, 843 F.2d 1190, 1195-

96 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiffs are entitled to interim

injunctive relief based on Defendants’ admission that the Project

does not comply with the Earth Island requirements. The

government’s assurance it will not violate environmental

standards has not been sufficient in the Ninth Circuit. See

Cent. Delta Water Agency v. United States, 306 F.3d 938, 950 (9th

Cir. 2002) (“It would be inequitable in the extreme for us to

permit one party to create a significantly increased risk of harm

to another, and then avoid the aggrieved party from trying to

prevent the potential harm because the party that created the

risk promises that it will ensure that the harm is avoided, yet

offers no specific or concrete plan of action for doing so.”).

For the reasons set forth above, 

1. Defendants’ request to suspend further briefing and to

stay the case pending the resolution of Earth Island

(Doc. 21) is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction is

GRANTED;

3. Defendants are directed to notify the court and

Plaintiffs within five (5) days following a final

decision in Earth Island; and

Case 1:05-cv-01395-LJO -SMS Document 24 Filed 08/23/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

4. All dates currently set in the above-captioned case are

VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01395-LJO -SMS Document 24 Filed 08/23/06 Page 5 of 5