Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

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.

Pays/Territoire
États-Unis d'Amérique
Type de cour
Nationale- cour inférieure
Date
Jan 8, 2010
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
United States District Court, N.D. California
Juge
FOGEL., J.
Numéro de référence
2010 WL 135183 (N.D.Cal.,2010)
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Eau, Espèces sauvages et écosystèmes
Mot clé
Faune sauvage Espèces végétales protégées Espèces animales protégées Espèces halieutiques protégées Gestion/conservation Protection des espèces Prélèvement d'eau
Résumé
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.
Texte intégral
COU-157268.pdf