Connor

CITIZENS LEGAL ENFORCEMENT & RESTORATION v. Connor

Good Law
762 F. Supp. 2d 1214·2011 WL 90241·2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2656
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaJanuary 11, 2011Case 06-CV-2368 JLS (WMC)California9,660 words

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…

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.