Center for Food Safety v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This text of Center for Food Safety v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Center for Food Safety v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7 THE COALITION TO PROTECT PUGET 8 SOUND HABITAT, Case No. C16-0950RSL 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 U.S. ARMY CORPS. OF ENGINEERS, et al., 12 Defendants, 13 and 14 TAYLOR SHELLFISH COMPANY, INC., 15 Intervenor - Defendant. _____________________________________ 16 CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, 17 Case No. 17-1209RSL Plaintiff, 18 v. ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO 19 FILE AMICUS BRIEF U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, et al., 20 Defendants, 21 and 22 PACIFIC COAST SHELLFISH GROWERS 23 ASSOCIATION, 24 Intervenor - Defendant. 25 26 This matter comes before the Court on the motion of the Squaxin Island Tribe and the 27 Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe for leave to file an amicus brief addressing the appropriate remedy 1 in the above-captioned cases. “District courts frequently welcome amicus briefs from non-parties 2 concerning legal issues that have potential ramifications beyond the parties directly involved or 3 if the amicus has unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that 4 the lawyers for the parties are able to provide.” NGV Gaming, Ltd. v. Upstream Point Molate, 5 LLC, 355 F. Supp.2d 1061, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations 6 7 omitted). In the circumstances presented here, information regarding the impact of potential 8 remedial options on the Tribes’ exercise of their treaty rights and shellfish aquaculture activities 9 is not likely to be presented by the party defendants or existing intervenors and may be helpful to 10 the Court’s equitable considerations. 11 12 For all of the foregoing reasons, the request for leave to file an amicus brief is 13 14 GRANTED. The Court will consider the Tribes’ submissions regarding the appropriate relief for 15 the agency’s unlawful actions, Dkt. # 62-1 in C16-950RSL and Dkt. # 78-1 in C17-1209RSL. 16 17 Dated this 31st day of October, 2019. A 18 Robert S. Lasnik 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Center for Food Safety v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/center-for-food-safety-v-us-army-corps-of-engineers-wawd-2019.