Source: http://mt.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180731_0001895.DMT.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 14:03:37+00:00

Document:
U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, an agency within the U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. Defendants.
The Court deems it inappropriate to take up the motion to reconsider at this juncture, as reconsideration should not serve as a substitute for appeal. County of Santa Clara v. Trump, 267 F.Supp.3d 1201, 1209 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (internal references omitted); cf. Equal Empl. Opportunity Commn. v. Wah Chang Albany Corp., 499 F.2d 187, 190 (9th Cir. 1974) (discussing reconsideration of a final judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)). With the entry of judgment pursuant to this Order resolving remedies, Federal Defendants remain free to appeal the Court's final decision. See F. R. App. P. 4.
Plaintiffs assert that the Court should enjoin issuance of new leases, and any surface-disturbing activity on existing leases. Injunctive relief represents “a drastic and extraordinary remedy” that a court should not grant “as a matter of course.” Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 165 (2010). A party seeking a permanent injunction must demonstrate: “(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.” Id. at 156-57 (internal references omitted).
The Court has already ordered Federal Defendants to comply with the Court's March 26, 2018, Order. This Order applies when issuing any new or pending lease of coal, oil, or gas resources in the Buffalo or Miles City planning areas until Federal Defendants produce remedial analyses that comply with its obligations under NEPA. (Doc. 111 at 51.) With such relief already imposed, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate an irreparable injury, or that that the balance of hardships favors a more restrictive injunction. Monsanto, 561 U.S. at 156-57.
Plaintiffs seek a vacatur of the ROD issued by Federal Defendants on September 21, 2015. The Administrative Procedures Act allows a court to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be. . . arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). The APA does not “mechanically obligate” Courts, however, “to vacate agency decisions that they find invalid.” Pac. Rivers Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 942 F.Supp.2d 1014, 1017 (E.D. Cal. 2013). “When equity demands, ” the Court may leave the agency action in place while the agency completes appropriate remedial measures. Cal. Cmtys. Against Toxics v. EPA, 688 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 706
 v. 
 v.