The parties filed #58 on June 3, a "JOINT MOTION TO RESCHEDULE HEARING ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT". Apparently there's a hearing scheduled for June 18 but the parties have scheduling conflicts and the parties would like to reschedule to July 23, 24, 29 or 30, or a later date if the court isn't available on those dates.
MINUTE ORDER. The in-person motions hearing currently scheduled on June 18 is hereby rescheduled to 2:00 PM on July 23, 2025. So ORDERED by Judge Carl J. Nichols on June 16, 2025. (lccjn2) (Entered: 06/16/2025)
SpaceX filed #59 on June 3. SpaceX thinks the recent U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County makes their case stronger.The Plaintiffs filed #60 on June 4, which is "PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR-DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY". The plaintiffs give their reasons why they disagree with SpaceX's #59. Their arguments are too complicated for me to summarize easily.
MINUTE ORDER. The 57 Joint Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED. The Parties are ORDERED to file the appendix with excerpts of the administrative record on or before June 17, 2025. So ORDERED by Judge Carl J. Nichols on May 30, 2025. (lccjn2) (Entered: 05/30/2025)
On June 5 the parties filed a joint status report #61 (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67303601/61/center-for-biological-diversity-v-federal-aviation-administration/). ... The Plaintiffs now plan to file a motion to amend or supplement their complaint regarding the second and third theories for relief to cover those April 24 actions.
As detailed below, Defendants request that the Court hold Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Amended and Supplemental Complaint (“Motion,”), Dkt. 64, in abeyance pending resolution of the summary judgment briefing currently before the Court. Alternatively, the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Motion as untimely filed.
Congrats, SpaceX
A US district court judge on Monday rejected a suit by conservation groups challenging the Federal Aviation Administration approval in 2022 of expanded rocket launch operations by Elon Musk’s SpaceX next to a national wildlife refuge in south Texas.The groups said noise, light pollution, construction and road traffic also degrade the area, home to endangered ocelots and jaguarundis, as well as nesting sites for endangered Kemp’s Ridley sea turtles and for threatened shorebirds. US district judge Carl Nichols in Washington said FAA had satisfied its obligation “to take a hard look at the effects of light on nearby wildlife”.
The PEA and the associated mitigated finding of no significant impact were not arbitraryor capricious. Most of the PEA’s conclusions were well-reasoned and supported by the record,and while parts of its analysis left something to be desired, even those parts fell “within a broadzone of reasonableness,” Seven Cnty., 145 S. Ct. at 1513. The Court therefore grants partialsummary judgment to the government and to SpaceX. An order will be issued contemporaneouslywith this decision.
I'm afraid I fell behind on updating this thread - lots of stuff has happened since my last post.
I'm afraid I fell behind on updating this thread - lots of stuff has happened since my last post. The most important is in #70 and #71 the judge rejected the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgement and granted the FAA and SpaceX's motions for partial summary judgement. I'm not sure but I don't think this ends the case completely, because of the word "partial" and because the summary judgement motions were for the first count only (and the plaintiffs can appeal). The judge's reasoning is in #70 (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67303601/70/center-for-biological-diversity-v-federal-aviation-administration/).Edit: The conclusion of the judge's opinion:QuoteThe PEA and the associated mitigated finding of no significant impact were not arbitraryor capricious. Most of the PEA’s conclusions were well-reasoned and supported by the record,and while parts of its analysis left something to be desired, even those parts fell “within a broadzone of reasonableness,” Seven Cnty., 145 S. Ct. at 1513. The Court therefore grants partialsummary judgment to the government and to SpaceX. An order will be issued contemporaneouslywith this decision.
Therefore, it is Plaintiffs’ understanding that the Court has now ruled on the only claim(or “theory for relief”) that is actively before the Court. Since Plaintiffs requested that the initialversion of the “second and third theories for relief” from the First Amended Complaint bedismissed without prejudice, and their Motion for Leave to File the Second Amended andSupplemental Complaint with the new versions of the “second and third theories for relief” wasnever granted and has now been withdrawn, the supplemental claims and additional theories ofrelief are not before the Court for resolution. If necessary, to effectuate this understanding,Plaintiffs request that the Court deem their second and third theories for relief, which are not setforth in a separate claim, see ECF No. 36 at 121-24, to have been voluntarily dismissed.For these reasons, Plaintiffs do not believe that a Rule 54(b) certification or furtheramendment of the Complaint is necessary before the Court may deem all matters before theCourt to be resolved and, on that basis, enter final judgment in this matter. The Court hasdisposed of all the claims before it, and judgment is therefore final. In re Domestic Airline TravelAntitrust Litig., 3 F.4th 457, 459 (D.C. Cir. 2021). Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter final judgment in this matter.
We're really glad to have you back with us; we've missed your coverage in this area.
Plaintiffs gave up on 2nd and 3rd theories for relief, seems like it's over: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.254763/gov.uscourts.dcd.254763.73.0.pdf
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ second and third theories of relief areDISMISSED WITH PREJDUICE.This is a final and appealable Order.
