COURT ORDERS

Judgment, Louisiana Environmental Action Network, Concerned Citizens of Belle River, and Atchafalaya Basinkeeper et al. v. Welsh, 2016-CA-0906 (La. 1st Cir. Ct. App.) (Vacating a Louisiana Department of Natural Resources permit to FAS Environmental Services, LLC to construct a transfer station for oil & gas exploration and production waste in a St. Martin Parish community) (101-132.2) (6/14/17)

Opinion, Coastal Conservation Association v. U.S. Department of Commerce v. Charter Fisherman's Association, No. 16-30137 (5th Cir.) (Upholding Department of Commerce regulations concerning the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.) (182-004) (1/17/17)

Judgment, and Order and Reasons, Coastal Conservation Association v. Dept. of Commerce, No. 15-cv-1300 (E.D. La.) (Upholding Amendment 40 to the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan under the Magnuson-Stevens Act) (182-003) (1/5/16)

Judgment, Town of Abita Springs v. Welsh, No. 637,209 (19th Jud. Dist.) (Overturning a drilling permit for a Helis Oil & Gas Co. fracking project in St. Tammany Parish (183-001.2) (9/1/2015)

Order and Reasons, Apalachicola Riverkeeper v. Taylor Energy Co., No. 12-cv-337 (E.D. La.) (Denying the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on standing to sue) (101-127) (7/7/15)

Opinion, Gulf Restoration Network, et al v. Gina McCarthy, No. 13-31214 (5th Cir.) (Vacating and remanding the district court’s order that EPA determine whether it is necessary to establish numeric water quality standards for nutrient pollution to abate, inter alia, the massive low-oxygen “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico (173-001.1) (4/7/15)

Order, Louisiana Crawfish Producers Association – West v. Mallard Basin, Inc., No. 10-cv-1085, consolidated with Louisiana Crawfish Producers Association – West v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers., No. 11-cv-461 (“Discovery is allowed in NEPA cases.”) (155-004) (12/10/14)

Reasons for Judgment, Save Lake Peigneur, Inc. v. Secretary, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, No. 122358E (16th Jud. Dist. Court) (Remanding DNR’s issuance of Coastal Use Permit to Jefferson Island Storage & Hub, LLC for creation of natural gas storage caverns in a salt dome underneath Lake Peigneur) (172-001.5) (9/23/14)

Order and Reasons, Gulf Restoration Network et al. v. Jackson, No. 12-cv-677 (E.D. La. 2013) (Granting summary judgment in part and remanding for EPA action within 180 days) (173-001) (9-20-13)

Order and Reasons, Apalachicola Riverkeeper v. Taylor Energy Co., No. 12-cv-337 (E.D. La.) (Denying the Defendant’s Motion to Stay, based on the primary jurisdiction doctrine, and denying in pertinent part the Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss) (101-127) (7/21/13)

Order and Reasons, Apalachicola Riverkeeper v. Taylor Energy Co., No. 12-cv-337 (E.D. La.) (Denying in part and granting in part the Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss) (101-127) (5/4/13)

Order, Ouachita Riverkeeper and Save the Ouachita v. Bostick, No.12-803 (D.D.C.) (Denying the Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue) (166-005) (1/29/13)

Order, Gulf Restoration Network v. City of Hattiesburg, No. 12-cv-36 (S.D. Miss.) (Rejecting a mootness and standing argument that the defendants had based on issuance of a government order) (157-039) (11/6/12)

Opinion, Industrial Pipe, Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish Council, 2012-1348 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (reversing a trial court discovery order that would have required citizen organizations to disclose the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all their members residing in Plaquemines Parish) (104-029.1) (9/14/12)

Order, ENSCO Offshore Company v. Salazar, No. 11- 30491 (5th Cir.) (clarifying that—despite a district court ruling that the law requires the federal government to act on permit applications for offshore oil drilling within 30 days of submission—“nothing in the [district court’s] judgment as amended requires the Government to act on all permit applications within thirty days” and that “the amended judgment does not prevent the Government or the intervenors from arguing that a thirty-day time frame would be unreasonable in a future case.” (126-019.4) (5/22/12)

Ruling on Second Motion to Intervene, U.S. v. Baton Rouge, No. 01-cv-978 (M.D. La.) (Granting Intervention in a Clean Water Act enforcement case) (101-117.2) (4/20/12)

Opinion, Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 11-30549 (5th Cir.) (Reversing dismissal of a citizen suit that alleged Clean Water Act violations at three Baton Rouge sewage treatment plants) (101-117.1) (4/17/12)

Order, Holy Cross Neighborhood Association et al. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 10-cv-1715 (E.D. La.) (The Court granted summary judgment that the Corps violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Water Act by selecting a “deep-draft” plan for its billion dollar Industrial Canal lock replacement project without considering the effect of closure of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet on the need for a deep-draft canal. The Court noted: “On its face this seems to be the proverbial bridge to nowhere; namely, constructing a deep-draft lock which will never be used by deep-draft traffic.”) (112-004.1) (9/9/11)

Order, Gulf Restoration Network v. Hancock County Development, LLC, 08-cv-00186 (S.D. Miss.) (Granting summary judgment that the defendant violated the Clean Water Act when, to construct a residential development near Bay St. Louis, it discharged storm water to area streams without an EPA permit and destroyed wetlands without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Court also found that the Plaintiff has standing to prosecute the lawsuit.) (157-019) (2/22/2011)

Order and Reasons, Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. Sun Drilling Products Corp., No. 09-cv-7389 (E.D. La.) (Granting summary judgment that the Defendant is liable for Clean Water Act violations and that the Plaintiff has standing to sue) (101-120) (12/2/10)   

Order and Reasons, Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. Sun Drilling Products Corp., No. 09-cv-7389 (E.D. La.) (Denying a Motion to Dismiss based on  pending state enforcement (101-120) (6/8/10) 

Order and Reasons, Concerned Citizens Around Murphy v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., No. 08-4986 (E.D. La.) (Ruling that an oil refinery in Meraux, Louisiana violated the Clean Air Act on twenty-one occasions) (161-003) (2/3/10)

Order, Gulf Restoration Network v. Hancock County Development, LLC, 08-cv-00186-LG-RHW (S.D. Miss.) (Rejecting a developer’s argument that an Army Corps of Engineers’ Notice of Violation protected the developer from citizen enforcement for destroying wetlands) (157-019) (11/16/09)

Opinion, Oakville Community Action Group v. Plaquemines Parish Council, No 2008-CA-1286 (La. App. 4th Cir.) (Reversing the 25th Judicial District Court and “thereby revoking the coastal use permit that the [Plaquemines Parish] Council issued” for expansion of the Industrial Pipe landfill into coastal wetlands) (104-014) (2/18/09)

Order Denying Motion To Dismiss, Gulf Restoration Network v. Hancock County Development, No. 08-186 (S.D. Miss.) (finding that the Plaintiff’s Clean Water Act Notice of Violation “was sufficient to permit the Defendants to identify the specific standard, limitation, or order alleged to have been vio`lated, the location of the alleged violations, and the dates of the alleged violations”) (157-019) (2/3/09)

Order and Reasons, Holy Cross Neighborhood Association, Louisiana Environmental Action Network, and Gulf Restoration Network v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 03-0370 (E.D. La.) (Awarding attorney fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act) (112-002) (05-30-08)

Judgment, In re: Waste Management of Louisiana, LLC, Woodside Landfill Air Permitting Decisions, No. 529640 (La. App. 1st Cir.) (Vacating a landfill permit for failure to obtain “prevention of significant deterioration” review under the Clean Air Act (101-093) (8/22/07)

Opinion, Loretto O’Reilly, Hazel Sinclair and Kelly Fitzmaurice v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 04-31026 (5th Cir.) (Upholding a district court’s finding that the U.S. Army Corps violated NEPA when approving a proposed subdivision (“Timber Branch II”) that would destroy 85 acres of forest, of which 39.5 acres are wetlands, in St. Tammany Parish) (110-004) (1/24/07)

Opinion, South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, No. 04-1200 (D.C. Cir.) (Overturning EPA rules that rolled back Clean Air Act protections for areas that fail to comply with the health protection standard for ozone pollution) (101-078) (12/22/06)

Order and Reasons, Holy Cross Neighborhood Association, Louisiana Environmental Action Network, and Gulf Restoration Network v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 03-0370 (E.D. La.) (Finding that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers “failed to take a “hard look” at the environmental impacts and consequences of dredging and disposing of the [Industrial] canal’s contaminated sediment” and enjoining the Corps “from continuing with the Project until it complies with NEPA.” (112-002) (10/4/06)

Order and Reasons, St. Bernard Citizens For Environmental Quality and Louisiana Bucket Brigade v. Chalmette Refining, LLC, No. 04-0398 (E.D. La.) (Summary judgment finding more than 2600 violations of the Clean Air Act at a oil refinery in St. Bernard Parish) (151-001) (10/14/05)

Judgment, George Washington, Concerned Citizens of St. Helena Parish and Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. St. Helena Parish Police Jury, No. 18370 (21st Jud. Dist.) (Vacating a 50-year contract with MMR St. Helena, LLC for a landfill as outside the powers of the police jury and for violations of the Open Meetings Law) (101-077) (6/7/05)

Opinion, Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, No. 02-60991 (5th Cir.) (noting the Court’s remand of an EPA attempt to extend the five parish Baton Rouge nonattainment area’s deadline for meeting the health protection standard for ozone air pollution, noting the Court’s vacatur of an EPA attempt to approve a trade-off of increased emissions of volatile organic compounds for decreased emissions of nitrogen oxides in the same area (inter-pollutant trading), and vacating EPA’s approval of a contingency plan for the area based on historical emission reductions from a facility located outside of the area) (101-040) (9/8/04)

Order and Reasons, Holy Cross Neighborhood Association, Louisiana Environmental Action Network, and Gulf Restoration Network v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 03-0370 (E.D. La.) (Denying the Army Corp’s motion to dismiss a challenge under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to the Corps’ plans to dredge contaminated sediments in the Industrial Canal) (112-002) (11/4/03)

Judgment, O’Reilly v. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, No. 509564 (19th Jud. Dist.) (Ordering LDEQ “to prepare an environmental analysis in compliance with . . . La. Const. Art. IX § 1” before issuing a CWA § 401 water quality certification for destruction of 39.5 acres of wetlands in St. Tammany Parish) (110-001) (3/5/04)

Oral Reasons, In re Waste Management, No. 492,277 (19th Jud. Dist.) (rejecting a challenge to student practice under Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XX) (4/8/02)

Summary Judgment, Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. Whitman, No. 00-879-A (M.D. La.) (Ordering EPA to determine whether to the Baton Rouge “nonattainment area” had failed to attain the federal health protection standard for ozone pollution) (101-001) (2/27/02)

Order Granting Voluntary Remand (& Entry of Dismissal), Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, No. 99-60570 (5th Cir.) (10/19/00)

Judgment, Louisiana Environmental Action Network, Citizens Protecting the Good Earth v. Fleet, No. 445,019 (19th Jud. Dist.) (Vacating a permit for a Non-Hazardous Oilfield Waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility near Gibson, Louisiana because of DNR’s failure to provide for comment on an environmental assessment) (102-001) (8/24/2000)

Ruling, Lake Peigneur Preservation and Beautification Association v. Herbert Thompson, No. 409,139 (19th Jud. Dist.) (Finding that the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources has a constitutional duty to assess environmental impacts before permitting a proposed project that has the potential to significantly affect the environment) (1/15/97)

 

Back to Resources