Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06685/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06685-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 16:1538 Endangered Species Act

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RIVER

WATCH, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH &

GAME, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-06685 CRB

ORDER

Now pending before the Court are defendants’ motion for clarification of the Court’s

order denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment; the United States’ motion seeking

leave to file brief as amicus curiae; and plaintiffs’ motion to strike the amicus curiae brief. 

After carefully considering the parties’ papers, the Court concludes that oral argument is

unnecessary. See Local Rule 7-1(b).

Defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the land at issue is not

owned by the federal government and therefore is not “under Federal jurisdiction” as a

matter of law. Thus, to succeed on their motion, defendants had to persuade the Court that

“under Federal jurisdiction” is limited to lands owned by the United States; that was the sole

argument raised by defendants on that issue. There is very limited authority on this question

and the parties’ discussion in their memoranda was brief. The Court concluded that 

Case 3:06-cv-06685-CRB Document 98 Filed 07/31/07 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

G:\CRBALL\2006\6685\orderreclarification.wpd 2

defendants’ limited discussion had not proved as a matter of law that “under Federal

jurisdiction” means only lands owned by the United States; the Court therefore denied

defendants’ motion. Plaintiffs had not cross-moved for summary judgment, accordingly, the

Court did not decide what “under Federal jurisdiction” means; it only decided that defendants

had not proved that it means only “owned by the United States”–the sole basis of defendants’

motion. The denial of defendants’ motion was therefore without prejudice to defendants

filing a new motion that proves as a matter of law that whatever “under Federal jurisdiction”

means, it does not encompass the lands at issue in this case.

In so clarifying the Court’s summary judgment order the Court has not relied on the

amicus curiae brief. However, as such brief may become relevant should defendants renew

their motion for summary judgment, the Court grants the United States’ motion for leave to

file the amicus curiae brief. Plaintiffs will have the opportunity to address the arguments

made by the United States in their opposition to any renewed motion for summary judgment. 

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion to strike the brief is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-06685-CRB Document 98 Filed 07/31/07 Page 2 of 2