California Trout, Inc. v. United States Bureau of Reclamation

ORDER Re: PENDING MOTIONS

Having reviewed and considered all the briefing filed with respect to Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint as Moot (“Motion to Dismiss”) and the Joint Applicants’ Motion to Intervene (“Motion to Intervene”) (collectively, “Motions”), the court concludes that oral argument is not necessary to resolve the Motions. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; Local Rule 7-15; Willis v. Pac. Mar. Ass’n, 244 F.3d 675 , 684 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001).

INTRODUCTION

California Trout, Inc. (“California Trout” or “plaintiff’) filed a Complaint against the United States Bureau of Reclamation (“the BOR”); Lowell Pimley, Acting Commissioner of the BOR; the United States Department of the Interior (“the DOI”); and Sally Jewell, Secretary of the DOI (collectively, “defendants”) for violations of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C., § 1531 et seq. In particular, plaintiff alleges that the BOR has not complied with the biological opinion (“BiOp”) 1 and the accompanying incidental take statement (“ITS”) 2 issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) in 2000. (See Complaint for Declaratory, and In-junctive Relief (“Complaint’’) at ¶¶ 55-74). Plaintiff…