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
Natural Gas Projects

Center For Biological Diversity, Pacific Environment, Turtle Island Restoration Network v. Export-Import Bank of The United States, Fred P. Hochberg

Published: Aug. 30, 2014 | Result Date: Aug. 12, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 4:12-cv-06325-SBA Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Sarah Uhlemann
(Center for Biological Diversity)

Brendan R. Cummings

Miyoko Sakashita


Defendant

Meredith L. Flax

Michael T. Pyle
(Office of the U.S. Attorney)

Kristofor R. Swanson


Facts

Center for Biological Diversity, Pacific Environment, and Turtle Restoration Network brought an action against the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and Fred P. Hochberg for declaratory and injunctive relief relating to environmental claims.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs alleged that the Export-Import Bank decided to provide nearly $4.8 billion in financing for two natural gas projects in Australia's Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, but failed to comply with environmental laws of the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs argued the Export-Import Bank failed to consider the two projects' substantial impacts on threatened and endangered species in Australia's Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Plaintiffs argued that Export-Import Bank should have, but failed to, consulted with the United States wildlife agencies before funding the projects.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing whether plaintiffs can challenge Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service's regulation, when neither agency is a party to the case, and whether plaintiffs' challenge is barred by statute of limitations.

Result

The court granted defendants motion to dismiss with leave to amend. In granting the motion, the court found, in part, that Export-Import Bank was not required to consult with National Marine Fisheries Services or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service before funding the projects.


#99631

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

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