The case involved the Sierra Club seeking to compel the government defendants to make a final determination on listing the peninsular bighorn sheep as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act, after they missed the statutory one-year deadline following a proposed rule in 1992. The defendants argued that budget restrictions, including a congressional moratorium on listing expenditures, and insufficient funding for over 200 pending species prevented timely action, leading them to adopt a prioritization scheme based on biological need. The court denied the plaintiff's application to reopen the stayed case, finding that the defendants' prioritization was reasonable given limited resources and the impossibility of addressing all pending listings immediately, and ordered the stay to remain in effect for the fiscal year.
This case concerns a union's long-running effort since 1981 to enforce an arbitration award issued by the National Joint Adjustment Board under an interest arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement, pursuant to § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. The court had previously granted summary judgment confirming the award and ordering a new contract; it now resolves the damages phase after referral to a special master under Rule 53. The court denied the defendants' motions for recusal and to strike evidence, accepted the master's factual findings as not clearly erroneous, and entered judgment for the union in the amounts of $52,962.71 in lost wages, $54,959.80 in lost fringe benefits, $2,795 in lost dues, $5,566.24 in liquidated damages, plus pre- and post-judgment interest. The core reasoning rests on established Ninth Circuit precedent holding that interest arbitration clauses and resulting awards are enforceable, along with the limited standard of review for a master's report in a non-jury case.
The case concerned the calculation of damages following a breach of a Collective Bargaining Agreement after the court had already granted partial summary judgment holding the employer liable for failing to comply with an arbitration award that imposed a new two-year contract. Based on the parties' stipulated facts, the court awarded the union damages including lost wages of $11,392.32, lost dues and assessments of $9,297.45, lost fringe benefits of $36,097.85, liquidated damages of $3,609.79, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorney fees and costs, and one year of injunctive relief to enforce contract terms, while denying punitive damages. The court reasoned that these amounts were recoverable as they proximately flowed from the breach under the original agreement's interest arbitration clause and applicable precedents, that the awarded contract provisions were enforceable, and that stipulations and contract language supported the specific items granted.
This case concerned the City of South Lake Tahoe's challenge to a cease-and-desist order issued by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) limiting DC-9 jet flights at the city's airport to three per day and 19 per week. The City argued that federal airline deregulation statutes, including the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, preempted TRPA's authority to impose such limits. The court granted TRPA's motion for partial summary judgment on the first cause of action, holding that the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact—ratified by Congress in 1980 after the deregulation laws—constitutes later, more specific federal legislation creating a narrow geographic exception for environmental regulation in the Tahoe Basin. The court reasoned that the Compact's environmental goals do not conflict with the nationwide economic focus of the Airline Deregulation Act, and TRPA's powers derive directly from this congressional enactment rather than state or local authority subject to preemption.
This case involves consolidated actions challenging restrictions under a 1984 preliminary injunction on shorezone development projects overseen by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). TRPA moved to modify the injunction to ease limits on certain water-related structures, while intervenor Tahoe Shorezone Representation (TSR) filed a counter-motion seeking broader changes and arguing that TRPA's proposed conditions were unreasonable and preempted by federal law. The court granted TRPA's motion and denied TSR's after finding TSR's claims repetitive of prior unsuccessful arguments, unsupported by new evidence, and inconsistent with TRPA's own ordinances as well as the Tahoe Compact approved by Congress. The court also clarified that formal agreement from intervenors is not required for modifications unless they file objections. The decision rests on the lack of merit in TSR's positions and the need to balance project development with environmental protections like fish habitat.
The case involved a dispute over whether the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) could require environmental review and limit increased commercial flights by Air Cal at South Lake Tahoe Airport, or whether such state requirements were preempted by federal aviation law. The U.S. and Air Cal sued in federal court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to nullify a state superior court order enforcing CEQA, which was then on appeal in state court. The district court consolidated the actions and granted California's motion to dismiss, abstaining under the Younger and Pullman doctrines due to the ongoing state proceedings, unresolved state law issues, and principles of comity and federalism. The court did not reach the merits of the preemption claim.
