Center for Biological v. U.S. Dept. of I

6 Citing briefs

  1. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION v. POMPEO et al

    MOTION to Dismiss , MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

    Filed March 21, 2019

    See, e.g., Clapper, 568 U.S. at 409 (“Although imminence is concededly a somewhat elastic concept, it cannot be stretched beyond its purpose, which is to ensure that the alleged injury is not too speculative for Article III purposes—that the injury is certainly impending.”) (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 565 n.2); Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Dep’t of Interior, 563 F.3d 466, 478 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (holding that where petitioners could only aver that “any significant adverse effects . . . ‘may’ occur at some point in the future,” it did “not amount to the . . . ‘certainly impending’ injury required to establish standing.”).

  2. Abbott, et al. v. BP Exploration and Production Inc et al.

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed April 4, 2012

    244 The Court noted that 244 Two other Courts of Appeals have found allegations similar to plaintiffs sufficient to confer standing under OCSLA. First, in Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 563 F.3d 466, 479, 483-4 (D.C. 83 Case 4:09-cv-01193 Document 337 Filed in TXSD on 04/04/12 Page 99 of 127 Abbott is a Texas native and has a direct interest in the protection, preservation and enhancement of the Gulf of Mexico environment. Further, Abbott and FWW members are ‘directly and beneficially interested in the continued protection, preservation and enhancement of’ values derived from the Gulf of Mexico environment.

  3. IN RE: POLAR BEAR ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT LISTING AND 4(d) RULE LITIGATION - MDL 1993

    Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION for Summary Judgment and Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities, 125 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 124 Supplemental MOTION for Summary Judgment Challenging the Listing Rule, 128 Supplemental MOTION for Summary Judgment on Listing Rule Claims, 127 Joint MOTION for Summary Judgment on Listing Rule Claims, 131 MOTION for Summary Judgment Corrected Motion and Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities, 126 MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed December 7, 2009

    See Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 520, n.17 (2007). See also Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 563 F.3d 466, 477 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“As the [Supreme] Court has long recognized, only the United States, and not the states, may represent its citizens and ensure their protection under federal law in federal matters.”). Third, even if Alaska’s alleged injuries were sufficient to demonstrate injury-in-fact, it has not adequately established causation. To establish standing, a plaintiff must allege “a fairly traceable connection between [its] injury and the complained-of conduct of the defendant.”

  4. Shell Offshore Inc. et al v. Greenpeace, Inc.

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, 17 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction

    Filed April 9, 2015

    62 Id. 63 See Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Dep’t of Interior, 563 F.3d 466 (D.C. Cir. 2009). 64 See id.

  5. Mead et al v. Holder et al

    REPLY to opposition to motion re MOTION to Dismiss

    Filed September 24, 2010

    In Gulf Restoration Network, this Court noted the D.C. Circuit’s repeated conclusion that “an injury is not ‘actual, imminent, or ‘certainly impending’’ for standing purposes where a party ‘can only aver that any significant adverse effects . . . ‘may’ occur at some point in the future.’” 2010 WL 3184327 at *8 (quoting Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 563 F.3d 466, 478 (D.C.Cir.2009)); id. (“Plaintiffs’ claims in the instant case are equally general and attenuated since they describe possible future harms instead of concrete present injury.”)

  6. TAITZ v. OBAMA

    MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint

    Filed March 31, 2010

    Where injuries result only indirectly, “from the independent action of some third party not before the court,” then “the presence of intervening factors interrupts the chain of traceability” and there is no standing. See, e.g., Center for Biological Diversity v. Dep’t of Interior, 563 F.3d 466, 478 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Miami Bldg. & Const. Trades Council, AFL/CIO v. Secr'y of Defense, 493 F.3d 201, 205-06 (D.C. Cir. 2007); International Labor Rights Educ. & Research Fund v. Bush, 954 F.2d 745, 751 (D.C. Cir. 1992). In her application for a preliminary injunction, Plaintiff raises the prospect of another type of harm: that her “law license” will be “undermine[d]” or “endanger[ed].”