Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. et al v. Moore, et al
Filing
197
ORDER: Based on the parties' motion and accompanying documents, the Court finds it equitable to vacate and remove from publication the Judicial Rulings. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), the Court GRANTS in full the Joint Motion to Dismiss Action and Vacate and Remove Court Decisions from Publication 192 , and enters a separate Judgment accordingly. Signed on 07/26/2011 by Judge Anna J. Brown. See Order for full text. (bb)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
FRIENDS OF THE COLUMBIA GORGE,
INC.; and IN DEFENSE OF ANIMALS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ROY ELICKER, DIRECTOR, OREGON
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE;
MARLA RAE, CHAIR, OREGON FISH
AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION, and
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE,
Defendants.
GARYKKAHN
JARED B. KAHN
Reeves, Kahn, Hennessy, & Elkins
P.O. Box 86100
4035 SE 52nd Ave.
Portland, OR 97286-0 I 00
(503) 777-5473
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
DWIGHT C. HOLTON
United States Attorney
STEPHEN J. ODELL
Assistant United States Attorney
1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 600
ORDER
OS-CV-646-BR
ORDER
Portland, OR 97204-2902
(503) 727-1024
Attorneys for Defendant United States Forest Service
(hereinafter referred to as USFS)
JOHN R. KROGER
Attorney General of Oregon
JOHN CLINTON GEIL
MATTHEW J. DONOHUE
CECIL A. RENICHE-SMITH
Assistant Attorneys General
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1162 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-4096
(503) 378-4402
Attorneys for State Defendants Roy Elicker, Director of Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife, and Marla Rae, Chair of Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission
(the agencies hereinafter referred to as ODFW and OFWC respectively and the
individuals in their capacities referred to collectively as State Defendants)
BROWN, Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the parties' Joint Motion to Dismiss Action and
Vacate and Remove Court Decisions from Publication (#192).
The parties have entered into a Settlement and Joint Dismissal Agreement, which is
attached to their motion. Pursuant to their Settlement Agreement, the parties jointly moved the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to dismiss USFS's appeal and Plaintiffs' crossappeal in this matter without prejudice to reinstatement under the terms specified in the
Settlement Agreement. On May 20, 2011, the Ninth Circuit granted the requested relief(#191).
Now, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the parties jointly request that the Court
dismiss this action with prejudice and vacate and remove from publication the Court's Opinion
and Order on Summary Judgment (# 143), Opinion and Order on Reconsideration (# 148), and
Judgment (#183), which are collectively published as Friends ofthe Columbia Gorge v. Elicker,
2
ORDER
598 F. Supp. 2d 1136 (D. Or. 2009), and which will be hereinafter collectively referred to as the
"Judicial Rulings."
As the parties have noted, the outcome in this case was highly fact-dependent, turning on
the specific and unique facts at issue, and it further appears that the dispute is unlikely to reoccur.
See Memorandum in Support of Joint Motion to Dismiss Action and Vacate and Remove Court
Decisions from Publication (#193) at 7-9. Defendant USFS has withdrawn from its
Memorandum of Understanding with ODFW regarding the release of Rocky Mountain goats
within the Scenic Area, and Defendants have agreed via the Settlement Agreement to formally
rescind the remaining agency documents that gave rise to the litigation. In addition, Curtis
Melcher, ODFW Deputy Director, has stated by Declaration (#194) that ODFW and OFWC do
not intend to release Rocky Mountain goats within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic
Area during the current ten-year period governed by OFWC's Rocky Mountain goat statewide
management plan, which expires in December 2013, and also do not anticipate proposing any
future releases of Rocky Mountain goats within the National Scenic Area within the foreseeable
future thereafter.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides that a district court "may relieve a party
or its legal representative from a final judgment" where "the judgment has been satisfied,
released, or discharged ... or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable," or for "any other
reason that justifies relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5), (6). A district court also has authority to
remove its decisions from publication, including when requested to do so by the parties via a
settlement agreement. See, e.g., Termine v. William S. Hart Union High Sch., 360 F.3d 1141 (9th
Cir. 2004); Doe & Assocs. Law Offices v. Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026, 1027 (9th Cir. 2000); Allto.
Cilib o/S. Cal. v. Mellon Bank (De) Nat'! Ass'n, 224 F.R.D. 657, 659 (C.D. Cal. 2004).
3
ORDER
Based on the parties' motion and accompanying documents, the Court finds it equitable
to vacate and remove from publication the Judicial Rulings. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b), the Comt GRANTS ill full the Joint Motion to Dismiss Action and Vacate and
Remove Comt Decisions from Publication (#192), and enters a separate Judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Iv
DATED this
day ofJuly 2011.
'24
A~
United States District Judge
4
ORDER
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
