Friends of Gualala River v. Gualala Redwood Timber, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 FRIENDS OF GUALALA RIVER, et al., Case No. 20-cv-06453-JD

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE DISMISSAL v. 9

Defendant. 11

12 13 The Court previously denied a request for a preliminary injunction by plaintiffs Friends of 14 Gualala River and the Center for Biological Diversity because the environmental claims alleged 15 against defendant Gualala Redwood Timber (GRT) with respect to the Dogwood Timber 16 Harvesting Plan (DTHP) had been fully and finally litigated in California state court, and so were 17 barred by res judicata. See Friends of Gualala River v. Gualala Redwood Timber, LLC, 552 F. 18 Supp. 3d 924, 933-37 (N.D. Cal. 2021). The Court dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of 19 Civil Procedure 12(c) for the same reasons. See Friends of Gualala River v. Gualala Redwood 20 Timber, LLC, No. 20-cv-06453-JD, 2021 WL 4053413, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2021). Plaintiffs 21 filed an appeal of the order denying an injunction, which they voluntarily dismissed. See Dkt. No. 22 105; Friends of Gualala River v. Gualala Redwood Timber, LLC, No. 21-16280, 2021 WL 23 5313632 (9th Cir. Aug. 13, 2021). 24 Although the res judicata orders arguably terminated the case, the Court granted plaintiffs 25 leave to file an amended complaint. Friends of Gualala, 2021 WL 4053413 at *2. In August 26 2021, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, Dkt. No. 104 (FAC), which repeated the barred 27 claims, namely that GRT’s logging work pursuant to the DTHP was “taking” and would continue 1 and did not make any new allegations about the project. GRT filed an answer, which re-asserted 2 res judicata as an affirmative defense. Dkt. No. 106 at 23. 3 Plaintiffs moved to strike the res judicata defense, Dkt. No. 107, which was in effect an 4 improper request for reconsideration. The Court denied the motion on that basis during a hearing 5 in October 2021. Dkt. No. 119 at 2:17-22 (hearing transcript). In an ensuing discussion, GRT 6 stated that the logging work authorized by the DTHP would be fully completed by the end of the 7 month. Id. at 4:4-18. Plaintiffs did not argue otherwise, and the Court directed the parties to 8 jointly propose a schedule for another motion to dismiss. Id. at 5:8-6:15. The Court subsequently 9 adopted the parties’ proposed schedule. See Dkt. No. 121. 10 GRT now asks to dismiss the FAC under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 11 12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 122. The thrust of the motion is that plaintiffs have had a full and fair 12 opportunity to litigate their claims, all of the claims were finally adjudicated, and there is nothing 13 left to resolve. GRT also states, without opposition by plaintiffs, that the logging authorized by 14 the DTHP was completed in October 2021, multiple state regulatory agencies signed off on GRT’s 15 work, and no new logging within the area covered by the DTHP will occur “within the next 12 to 16 15 years.” Id. at 2. Plaintiffs’ opposition rehashed their prior unsuccessful arguments against res 17 judicata, and made vague references to “continuing harm” from the DTHP that were not supported 18 by plausible factual allegations. See Dkt. No. 127 at 3-9, 11. 19 At a hearing in June 2022, the Court pressed plaintiffs about what remained in the case that 20 had not already been resolved in the state court proceedings. Dkt. No. 143 (hearing transcript). 21 The Court noted that the FAC referred to “ongoing logging,” when the logging was in fact 22 completed, and that the FAC did not make any allegations of post-harvest problems that were new 23 or different from the claims and harms previously alleged. Id. at 4:24-6:18. Plaintiffs did not 24 offer any meaningful facts or arguments in response. Although “deeply skeptical” that further 25 amendment was warranted, the Court gave plaintiffs a final opportunity to file a complaint 26 alleging new and different claims and harms from those already litigated. Id. at 10:2-25. 27 Plaintiffs declined to amend. Dkt. No. 142. Rather, they elected to stand on the FAC. Id. 1 On this record, dismissal is warranted. GRT’s motion raised a number of standing and 2 || mootness arguments, see Dkt. No. 122 at 6-7, but there is a more straightforward reason for 3 dismissal. The claims in the original complaint were barred by res judicata. See Friends of 4 || Gualala, 2021 WL 4053413, at *1. Plaintiffs were given multiple opportunities to allege facts that 5 would plausibly state a claim or injury not subject to the res judicata bar. They did not do so. 6 To be clear, dismissal is not based on mootness arising from the fact that the logging work 7 has been completed. An environmental dispute is not necessarily vitiated or made moot just 8 || because the challenged project was finished. See Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain vy. Alexander, 303 9 || F.3d 1059, 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2002). The situation here is that plaintiffs fully and finally litigated 10 || all of their claims in state court. They have not identified any new or different claims and harms 11 despite multiple opportunities to amend. 12 Consequently, there is nothing left to adjudicate in this case. The FAC is dismissed 13 without prejudice, and the case will be closed. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 Dated: November 16, 2022 16

Ye 8 JAMESPUNATO. Unitedf tates District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28