Ecolex Logo
El portal del
derecho ambiental
Resultados de la búsqueda » Jurisprudencia

SIERRA CLUB, and the Carmel River Steelhead Association, Plaintiffs, v. CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, d/b/a California American Water, Defendant, Gary Locke, Secretary of the United States Department of Commerce, Dr. Jane Lubchenko, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Rodney McInnis, Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, Named as FRCP 19(a) Necessary Party Defendants.

País/Territorio
Estados Unidos de América
Tipo de la corte
Nacional - corte inferior
Fecha
Ene 8, 2010
Fuente
UNEP, InforMEA
Nombre del tribunal
United States District Court, N.D. California
Juez
FOGEL., J.
Número de referencia
2010 WL 135183 (N.D.Cal.,2010)
Idioma
Inglés
Materia
Agua, Especies silvestres y ecosistemas
Palabra clave
Fauna silvestre Especies de plantas protegidas Especies animales protegidas Especies de peces protegidas Ordenación/conservación Protecíon de las especies Captación de agua
Resumen
The Sierra Club and the Carmel River Steelhead Association (CRSA) brought suit against the California American Water Company (CAW), a water and wastewater utility, seeking injunctive relief and alleging that the company was wrongfully diverting water from the Carmel River and causing harm to the South Central California Coast Steelhead fish (steelhead), an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). CAW moved to dismiss the action, arguing that the Court must dismiss the action under the Younger abstention doctrine because hearing the Plaintiffs' claim would interfere with ongoing state judicial proceedings. At the time that the Sierra Club and CRSA brought suit, CAW was involved in ongoing proceedings with the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), which maintains original jurisdiction over the appropriation of surface waters within the state. The Court found that the Younger abstention applied and dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Court held that abstention by a district court is required under Younger when three criteria are satisfied: (1) state judicial proceedings are ongoing; (2) the proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings provide an adequate opportunity to raise federal questions. Here, the first prong of the Younger abstention doctrine was satisfied by the ongoing SWRCB proceedings; the second prong was satisfied by the fact that the SWRCB proceedings involved the regulation of the river's scarce water resources, and that California had a substantial state interest in regulating the water resources within its borders; and, the third prong was satisfied by the fact that the state proceedings provided the plaintiffs with an opportunity to raise federal questions. Consequently, all three prongs for the Younger abstention doctrine were met and the Court granted the motion to dismiss, without leave to amend.
Texto completo
COU-157268.pdf