N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
B EVERLY HILLS UNIFIED SC HOOL DISTR IC T, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla nt,
v. FEDER AL TR ANSIT ADM INISTR

ATION; e t a l., De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 17-55080 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-09861-GW -SS
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Ge orge H. W

u, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

July 14, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON and WARDLAW , C irc uit Judge s, a nd C HEN, ** Distric t Judge
. 

# F IL ED AUG 08 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Edwa rd M . C h e n , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.B e ve rly Hills Unifie d Sc hool Distric t (the “ Sc hool Distric t” ) a ppe a ls the distric t c o urt’ s de n ia l of its m otion for a pre lim i na

ry injunc tion. W e have jurisdic tion pursua

n t to 28 U.S.C . §1292, a

n d we dism iss. 1 1. The distric t c ourt la c ke d jurisdic tion to e njoin theFe de ra l Tra n sit Adm inistra

tion (“ FTA” ) from

e nte ring into a

full-funding gra

nt a g re e m e nt (“ Gran t Agre e m e nt” ) with theLos Ange le s C ounty M e tropolita

n Tra nsporta t ion Authority (“ M e tro” ) or to e njoin M e t ro from e xe c uting thede sign/build c ontra c t for the W e stsideSubwa

y Exte nsion (“ De sign/B uild C ontra c t” ). The Sc hool Distric t
c la im s tha

t the FTA viola

te d the Nationa l Environm e nta l Polic y Ac t (“ NEPA” ) by
e xe c uting thegrant a gre e m e nt a nd de sign/build c ontra c t be fore issuing the supple m e nta l Environm e nta l Im pa c t Sta te m e nt (“ EIS” ) c onte m

plate d by the distric t c o urt’ s R e m e dy

Orde r. The FTA is c urre ntly a ddre ssing de fic ie nc ie s found in the EIS, unde r the c ourt’ s re m and. The Sc hool Distric t a

rgue s tha t the FTA pre de te rm ine d the outc om e of the
e nvironm e nta l a

na ly sis. Me tc alf v . Dale

y , 214 F.3d 1135, 1145 (9th C ir. 2000). Howe ve r, we m ay

only re a c h the que stion of pre de te rm ination if theSc hool Distric t ha s prope rly

c ha l le nge d fina l a ge nc y

a c tion.

1 W e grant the Sc hool Distric t’ s m otion to ta ke judic ia l notic e of doc um e nts re late d to c onstruc tion file d Fe b. 16, 2017. 2“ Whe n a c la im is brought pursua

nt to theAPA, the a ge nc y a c tion m ust be

‘ fina l a ge nc y

a c tion for whic h the re is no other a de quate re m e dy in c ourt.’ ” Rattle snak e C oal. v . EPA , 509 F.3d 1095, 1103 (9th C ir. 2007) (quoting 5 U.S.C
. § 704). For a

n a ge nc y a c tion to befina l, it “ m

ust m ark the c onsum

m ation of the
a ge nc y ’ s de c isionm aking proc e ss,” and m ust be “ one by

whic h rights or obliga tions ha v e be e n de te rm ine d, or from whic h le ga l c onse que nc e s will flow.” Be nne tt v . Spe ar , 520 U.S. 154, 178 (1997) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om i tte d). Unde r NEPA, the fina l a ge nc y a c tion re quire m e nt m e rge s with the
re quire m e nt tha

t a n a g e nc y pre pa re an EIS for “ m a

j or Fe de ra l a c tions signific antly
a ffe c ting thequa lity

of the hum an e nvironm e n t.” 42 U.S.C . § 4332(c ); s e e also C al. W ilde rne ss C oal. v . U.S. De

p’t of Ene r

gy , 631 F.3d 1072, 1106 (9th C ir. 2011). The Sc h ool Distric t a rgue s tha t the FTA’ s c om

m itm e nt of funds through the G rant Agre e m e nt a

nd the De sign/B uild C ontra c t c onstitute s a “ m a jor fe de ra l
a c tion[] ” , 42 U.S.C . § 4332(c ), and tha t the FTA the re fore c ould not perm issibly
e nte r into thosea gre e m e nts be fore c om ple ting thesupple m e n ta l EIS. A fina nc ia l c om m i t m e nt is only

a m a jor fe de ra l a c tion unde r NEPA whe re it
c onstitute s a

n “ irre ve rsible and irre trie va ble c om m itm e nt of re sourc e s.” C onne r v . Burford , 848 F.2d 1441, 1446 (9th C ir. 1988). An a ge nc y m ake s a n irre ve rsible
and irre trie va

ble c om m itm e nt whe re , for insta

nc e , it “ spe nd[s] m ost or a ll of its 3lim ite d budge t on pre pa ra tions use ful for only

one a lte rnative .” W

ildW e st Inst. v
. Bull , 547 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th C ir. 2008). He re , the Grant Agre e m e nt a nd De sign/B uild C ontra c t do not repre se nt a n irre ve rsible and irre trie va ble c om m itm e nt to theC onste l lation Sta tion a lignm e nt. The FTA re pre se nte d to thedistric t c ourt tha t the Grant Agre e m e nt a

nd the De sign/B uild C ontra c t would not preve nt it from m aking c ha

nge s to thepla

nne d
a lignm e nt. The distric t c ourt did not c le a rly e rr in finding tha

t suc h c ha n ge s we re possible
. Ac c o rdingly , the a gre e m e nts we re not fina l a ge nc y a c t ion. 2 Give n tha t the distric t c ourt re ta ins jurisdic tion ove r the Sc hool Distric t’ s NEPA a c tion, the pa

rtie s a re fre e to re t

urn to it if subse que nt e ve nts wa rrant, a nd the c ourt m ay

c ontinuein its supervisory role . Whe n the c ourt re vie w s the FTA’ s supple m e nta l EIS, it m ay

e va luate whe t

he r the FTA’ s c om

m itm e nts—i nc luding those m a d e via

the Gran t Agre e m e nt a

nd De sign/B uild C ontra c t— in fa c t infe c te d the FTA’ s a

na ly s is of a lte rnative s. Se eMe tc alf , 214 F.3d a

t 1145. At this point, howe v e r, the Sc hool Distric t’ s c ha lle nge is pre m ature .

2 Eve n if we ha d

jurisdic tion a

nd found tha

t the Sc hool Distric t wa s like ly to suc c e e d on the m e rits, wewould c onc lude tha t the distric t c ourt did not a buse i ts disc re tion in deny ing a pre lim i na

ry injunc tion unde r the tra ditiona l te st for injunc tive re l ie f. The c ourt c orre c tly we ighe d the e quitie s a

n d ha rdships, a s we ll a s the public inte re st, give n tha t a c t ua l c onstruc tion is not sche dule d to be gin until Ja nua ry 2018. Se e W

inte r v . N atural Re s. De f. C o unc i l , 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 42. In an e ffort to a void thefina l a ge nc y a c tion re quire m e nt, the Sc hool Distric t a rgue s tha t the C ourt m ay

inte rpre t its m otion for pre lim ina ry injunc tion a s
a m otion to re c onside r the R e m e dy Orde r. Howe ve r, it did not m ake this a rgum e nt to the distric t

c o urt. Nor did it make any atte m pt to e xpla in why the origina l orde r
wa s proble m atic . Ac c ordingly , this a rgum e nt is wa ive d. Se eGribbe n v . Unite d Parc e l Se rv ., Inc
. , 528 F.3d 1166, 1171 (9th C ir. 2008) (a rgum e n ts not pre se nte d to distric t c o urt a

re wa ive d). DISM I SSE D.

5