Filed: Jan. 08, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 08, 2015
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS AGAINST BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION AND ELLIOT MAINZER FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AS MOOT SALVADOR MENDOZA, Jr., District Judge. Before the Court, without oral argument, is Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. 9. This Motion, filed November 17, 2014, seeks the dismissal of Defendants Bonneville Power Administration ("BPA") and Elliot Mainzer as parties to the action pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS AGAINST BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION AND ELLIOT MAINZER FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AS MOOT SALVADOR MENDOZA, Jr., District Judge. Before the Court, without oral argument, is Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. 9. This Motion, filed November 17, 2014, seeks the dismissal of Defendants Bonneville Power Administration ("BPA") and Elliot Mainzer as parties to the action pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)..
More
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS AGAINST BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION AND ELLIOT MAINZER FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AS MOOT
SALVADOR MENDOZA, Jr., District Judge.
Before the Court, without oral argument, is Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. 9. This Motion, filed November 17, 2014, seeks the dismissal of Defendants Bonneville Power Administration ("BPA") and Elliot Mainzer as parties to the action pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(1). Id. at 2. Defendants argue that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because "the Northwest Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(5), vests exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to all "final actions" of Bonneville [such as the one tying the BPA to this case] in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals." Id. at 2.
On December 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 10. This Complaint did not list the BPA or Elliot Mainzer, the administrator and CEO of the BPA, as parties. That same day, Plaintiff also filed a response to Defendants' motion arguing that it should be denied as moot because the First Amended Complaint supersedes the original.
Having reviewed the pleadings and the file in this matter, the Court is fully informed and denies Defendants' motion as moot. Plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed any claims against BPA and Elliot Mainzer.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. 9, is DENIED as moot.
2. The Clerk's Office is directed to CHANGE the case caption in this matter to:
WILD FISH CONSERVANCY,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVE IRVING, in his official
capacity as the Manager of the
Leavenworth Fisheries Complex;
UNITED STATES FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE; DANIEL M.
ASHE, in his official capacity as the
Director of the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service; UNITED
STATES BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION; LOWELL
PIMLEY, in his official capacity as
the Acting Commissioner of the
United States Bureau of
Reclamation,
Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk's Office is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to all counsel.
