Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Winter
| Decision Date | 16 January 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 08-55054.,08-55054. |
| Citation | 513 F.3d 920 |
| Parties | NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.; The International Fund for Animal Welfare; Cetacean Society International; League for Coastal Protection; Ocean Futures Society; Jean-Michel Cousteau, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Donald C. WINTER, Secretary of the Navy; United States Department of the Navy; Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary of the Department of Commerce; National Marine Fisheries Services; William Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration; Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., Administrator of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
ORDER
The Navy has filed an emergency motion in this court to vacate the preliminary injunction issued by the district court, or alternatively, to partially stay the injunction. To put the matter in context, we briefly set forth its procedural posture.
On August 7, 2007, the district court entered a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Navy from using mid-frequency active sonar (MFA sonar) during the course of the remaining eleven of fourteen large training exercises scheduled to be conducted in the Navy's training ranges off the coast of southern California. On August 31, 2007, a motions panel of this court granted the Navy's motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal. On. November 8, 2007, the merits panel heard argument and considered the effect that narrowly tailored mitigation measures might have on the parties' interests. On November 13, 2007, it vacated the stay and remanded to the district court to issue an order by January 4, 2008, "narrow[ing] its injunction so as to provide mitigation conditions under which the Navy may conduct its training exercises." Natural Res. Def. Council v. Winter, 508 F.3d 885, 887 (9th Cir.2007).1 The Navy stated that its next exercise was scheduled to commence sometime in January. The decision to remand for modification of the preliminary injunction was informed by "the district court's longstanding involvement with this matter and its familiarity with the effectiveness and practicability of available mitigation measures." Id.2
The district court issued a revised preliminary injunction on January 3, 2008. It allowed the Navy to use MFA sonar during the remaining exercises, but imposed mitigating measures similar to the type included in the Pacific Rim settlement, although with different requirements. On January 9, 2008, the Navy filed an application with the district court asking that it stay its decision pending appeal and requesting relief by January 14, 2008. In response to arguments raised in the Navy's stay application, the district court narrowed the mitigation measures contained in its January 3, 2008 order and issued a modified preliminary injunction on January 10, 2008. The Navy filed a notice of appeal the following day. On January 14, 2008, the district court denied the Navy's stay application. On the evening of January 15, 2008, the Navy filed its emergency motion to vacate the preliminary injunction or, alternatively, to partially stay the injunction pending decision on its appeal to our court. It requested relief by 2:00 p.m. (PST) on January 18, 2008.
The Navy's motion was based in part on two significant legal developments that took place on the same day that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ocean Mammal Institute v. Gates
...NEPA regulations, 40 C.F.R. § 1506.11. The Ninth Circuit immediately remanded the stay motion to the district court. See NRDC v. Winter, 513 F.3d 920 (9th Cir.2008). Later that day, the Navy moved to vacate the injunction or, in the alternative, a partial stay in the district court relative......