Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-04106/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-04106-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4332 Environmental Policy - Coop of Agency Reports

---

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

FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ROBERT MOSBACHER, JR., et al.

Defendants. /

No. C 02-04106 JSW

ORDER CERTIFYING ORDERS

FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

On August 23, 2005, this Court issued an Order denying the Motion for Summary

Judgment filed by Defendants Peter Watson, in his official capacity as President and CEO of the

Overseas Private Investment Corporation (“OPIC”), and Peter Merrill, in his official capacity as

Vice Chairman and First Vice President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (“ExIm”). (Docket No. 117 and Attachment A hereto.) In that Order, the Court determined: (1) that

Plaintiffs had standing to assert their claims; (2) that Plaintiffs’ challenged a final agency action

under the Administrative Procedure Act; (3) that OPIC’s organic statute, the Foreign Assistance

Act, did not preclude judicial review of the challenged actions; and (4) that OPIC had not

presented sufficient evidence to show that Congress intended environmental procedures in the

Foreign Assistance Act to displace the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”).

On March 30, 2007, the Court issued a further order denying Plaintiffs’ motion for

summary judgment on the merits of their claims, and granted in part and denied in part,

Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. (Docket No. 172 and Attachment B hereto.) In

that Order, the Court: (1) reaffirmed its previous finding that OPIC had not demonstrated it was

not subject to NEPA; (2) that Plaintiffs’ claims did not involve the extraterritorial application of

Case 3:02-cv-04106-JSW Document 189 Filed 06/06/07 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

2

NEPA; (3) that Defendants did not operate energy “programs” as that term is used in NEPA; (4)

and that neither party met its burden to show whether the individual projects identified in the

Second Amended Complaint or that were identified in the Administrative Record qualified as

“major federal actions” for purposes of NEPA; and (5) that Plaintiffs were not entitled to an

injunction requiring Defendants to comply withe NEPA for any future projects for which they

might provide financing.

In the March 30, 2007 Order, the Court set a status conference and asked the parties to

advise the Court whether they intended to seek an interlocutory appeal. At the status

conference held on April 27, 2007, Plaintiffs advised the Court they would seek leave to appeal. 

Defendants advised the Court that they would require additional time before they could advise

the Court of their answer, and filed a motion seeking to stay any certification for sixty days. 

The Court granted that motion in part on May 9, 2007, and advised the parties that it would stay

certification of both the August 23, 2005 and March 30, 2007 Orders until June 6, 2007.

Accordingly, because the Court firmly believes that both the August 23, 2005 Order and

the March 30, 2007 Order involve controlling questions of law as to which there is substantial

ground for difference of opinion and that an appeal from these orders would materially advance

this litigation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the attached Orders (Dockets 117 and 172) are

certified for interlocutory appeal.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if either of the parties applies to the United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for such an interlocutory appeal, all further action in

these proceedings shall be stayed pending a decision by that Court. The parties shall

submit a joint status report to the Court within thirty days of the date of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:02-cv-04106-JSW Document 189 Filed 06/06/07 Page 2 of 2