Norton

Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton

Good Law
212 F. Supp. 2d 1217·2002 WL 1677674·2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13176
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaJuly 1, 20023:01-cv-02145California4,801 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gonzalez, J.

ORDER SETTING TIMELINE ON REMAND

Pursuant to the May 9, 2002 joint stipulation for consolidation and remand, the parties to these consolidated cases briefed the Court on the appropriate timeline for new critical habitat determinations for the Peirson’s milk-vetch, Lane Mountain milk-vetch, Fish Slough milk-vetch, San Jacinto crownseale, Spreading Navarretia, Munz’s Onion, Coachella Valley milk-vetch, and Thread-leaved brodiaea. Plaintiff Center for Biological Diversity and California Native Plant Society’s proposed timeline would provide the Service one to two years to complete new critical habitat determinations for all eight species. In contrast, defendants, as well as plaintiff Building Industry Defense Foundation and Interve-nors, urge the Court to impose a deadline that would provide the Service three to four years to issue new and proposed rules on remand. For the reasons stated below, the Court rejects both proposed timelines as unreasonable and imposes its own.

BACKGROUND

On November 15, 2001 Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity and California Native Plant Society (collectively, “CBD”) filed suit against Gale Norton, Secretary of the Interior, and the United…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.