This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Environmental Law
Endangered Species Act

California River Watch, et al. v. County of Sonoma

Published: Jan. 10, 2015 | Result Date: Jul. 10, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 3:14-cv-00217-WHA Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Jerry Bernhaut

Jack Silver
(Law Office of Jack Silver)

Jenny Loda

Edward E. Yates


Defendant

Ashley E. Breakfield

Paul P. Spaulding III
(Farella Braun + Martel LLP)

Verne R. Ball


Facts

California River Watch sued the County of Sonoma for the alleged taking of California tiger salamanders.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff alleged that the county violated the federal Endangered Species Act by causing takes of the endangered California tiger salamander through the adverse modification of 47,383 acres of land designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as critical habitat on the Santa Rosa Plain. Plaintiff alleged that private agricultural, industrial, and residential projects caused take, and that the county was liable because it authorized these projects. Plaintiff also alleged that the county caused take of the endangered salamander directly through its own public projects.

Result

The court found that the action was abstract and not yet ripe for adjudication. It dismissed the complaint without prejudice to filing a new case addressing a specific project. The court also found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit because the plaintiff's notice letters did not provide sufficient information of a violation so that the county could identify and attempt to abate it. The reference to 47,383 acres did not provide sufficient geographic information, and the notice letters were also inconsistent with the complaint. Notwithstanding, the county agreed to provide certain injunctive relief, including providing additional notice of all permits contemplating development within the designated California tiger salamander habitat area through maintenance of a publicly-accessible database.


#116356

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390