Connor
CITIZENS LEGAL ENFORCEMENT & RESTORATION v. Connor
Opinion
Opinion
Sammartino, J.
ORDER: (1) GRANTING RECLAMATION’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 80) AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION (Doc. No. 83); (3) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AGAINST PYID; (4) DENYING AS MOOT PVID’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 82) AND PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION (Doc. No. 87); (5) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART RECLAMATION’S MOTION TO STRIKE (Doc. No. 98); AND (6) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PVID’S DAUBERT MOTION (Doc. No. 95)
Presently before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment by all parties (Doc. Nos. 80, 82, 83, 87), a Daubert motion by Defendants Jill Johnson and Ed Smith (Doc. No. 95), and a motion to strike by Defendants Michael L. Connor, Ken Salazar, Robert W. Abbey, and Rowan W. Gould (Doc. No. 98). Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and the law, the Court GRANTS Reclamation’s motion for summary judgment, DENIES Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment against Reclamation, DISMISSES all claims against PVID for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and therefore DENIES AS MOOT the other two pending summary judgment motions.
BACKGROUND
This case concerns environmental conditions in a former part of the Colorado River channel known…