Filed: Jul. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 24, 2014
Summary: ORDER GARLAND D. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge. The Notice of Related Cases concerning the above-captioned cases filed July 23, 2014, has been considered. As stated in the July 22, 2014 Order Severing Claims, Although Plaintiffs allege the same four claims as to each project, the projects are geographically and temporally distinct. The Aspen Project was created in response to the Aspen fire, which occurred in July of 2013, in the Sierra National Forest in Fresno County, California. The
Summary: ORDER GARLAND D. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge. The Notice of Related Cases concerning the above-captioned cases filed July 23, 2014, has been considered. As stated in the July 22, 2014 Order Severing Claims, Although Plaintiffs allege the same four claims as to each project, the projects are geographically and temporally distinct. The Aspen Project was created in response to the Aspen fire, which occurred in July of 2013, in the Sierra National Forest in Fresno County, California. The B..
More
ORDER
GARLAND D. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge.
The Notice of Related Cases concerning the above-captioned cases filed July 23, 2014, has been considered. As stated in the July 22, 2014 Order Severing Claims,
Although Plaintiffs allege the same four claims as to each project, the projects are geographically and temporally distinct. The Aspen Project was created in response to the Aspen fire, which occurred in July of 2013, in the Sierra National Forest in Fresno County, California. The Big Hope Project was created in response to the American fire, which occurred in August of 2013, in the Tahoe National Forest in Placer County, California.
(Order Severing Claims 2:18-26, ECF No. 36 (citations omitted).)
Further, the projects were approved by different decision makers and involve separate administrative records. (See Notice of Related Cases 2:18-24, 4:11, ECF No. 41.) Also, the dispute concerning potential effects on the Pacific Fisher is only involved in the Aspen Project. (See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 75-79, ECF No. 1.)
Therefore, even though Plaintiffs allege each project violates the same federal environmental laws, decision concerning the two projects requires review of separate administrative records and application of different facts to the law.
For the stated reasons, the undersigned judge declines to relate case No. 1:14-cv-01140 KJM-SKO.
