Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, Civil No. 94-1021 (PLF)
| Decision Date | 05 May 1997 |
| Docket Number | 94-1106 (PLF).,Civil No. 94-1021 (PLF) |
| Citation | 967 F.Supp. 6 |
| Parties | The FUND FOR ANIMALS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Bruce BABBITT, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Defendants. and NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Bruce BABBITT, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Eric Robert Glitzenstein, Meyer & Glitzenstein, Washington, DC, for Fund for Animals.
Howard I. Fox, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Washington, DC, for National Audubon Society.
Joseph R. Perella, Environment & Natural Resources Div., Washington, DC, for Defendants.
On consideration of the parties' joint motion for approval of their settlement agreement and limited relief under Rule 60(b), and in accordance with this Court's January 29, 1997, opinion, it is hereby ordered that the parties' settlement agreement is approved and it is further ordered that the Court's September 29, 1995, Opinion is hereby amended as follows:
(1) The clause in the last sentence of footnote 7, which reads, "and because under the statute that factor alone may have been sufficient to justify listing the bear, 50 C.F.R. § 424.11(c)" is hereby vacated; and
(2) The words "past" and "historic" in the last sentence of footnote 7 are hereby vacated.
The clerk is directed to submit a copy of the amended opinion with the vacated portions deleted to West's Reporting Service for publication.
This case is hereby dismissed, except with regard to any claim for attorneys fees' and costs, and except that any party may move to enforce any aspect of the Court's September 29, 1995, order as amended, or to enforce the settlement agreement filed with the Court along with the parties' joint Rule 60(b) motion;
Any claim for attorneys' fees and costs will be resolved in accordance with ¶ 8 of the parties' settlement agreement.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. Jewell
...Fed.R.Civ.P.” Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F.Supp. 96, 105 (D.D.C.1995) (internal citation omitted) amended on other grounds, 967 F.Supp. 6 (D.D.C.1997).B. OSM's “No Effect” Determination Was Arbitrary and Capricious, and Therefore its Failure to Consult with the Service Violated the ES......
-
Kaiser Found. Hospitals v. Sebelius
...2005 WL 691775, at *7 (D.D.C.2005); Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F.Supp. 96, 105 (D.D.C.1995), amended on other grounds, 967 F.Supp. 6 (D.D.C.1997)). “[T]he function of the district court is to determine whether or not as a matter of law the evidence in the administrative record permitt......
-
Jurewicz v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., Civil Action Nos. 10–1683 (JEB), 11–707 (JEB).
...Eng'rs, 2005 WL 691775, at *7 (D.D.C.2005); Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F.Supp. 96, 105 (D.D.C.1995), amended on other grounds,967 F.Supp. 6 (D.D.C.1997)). “[T]he function of the district court is to determine whether or not as a matter of law the evidence in the administrative record ......
-
Gentiva Healthcare Corp. v. Sebelius, Civil Action No. 11–438 (JEB).
...Eng'rs, 2005 WL 691775, at *7 (D.D.C.2005); Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F.Supp. 96, 105 (D.D.C.1995), amended on other grounds,967 F.Supp. 6 (D.D.C.1997)). “[T]he function of the district court is to determine whether or not as a matter of law the evidence in the administrative record ......
-
Grizzly bear blues: a case study of the Endangered Species Act's delisting process and recovery plan requirements.
...develops a recovery plan, the ESA does not mandate that he follow its recommendations). (83) 903 F. Supp. 96 (D.D.C. 1995), amended by 967 F. Supp. 6 (D.D.C. 1997); see also infra Part (84) INTERAGENCY GRIZZLY BEAR COMMITTEE, GRIZZLY BEAR RECOVERY PLAN (1993) [hereinafter 1993 RECOVERY PLAN......