• Skip to main content
  • Home
  • Contact
  • About
  • Search
    • Search US
    • Search Global
  • Global Litigation
  • U.S. Litigation

Pacificans for a Scenic Coast v. Federal Highway Administration

Filing Date: 2015
Case Categories:
  • Federal Statutory Claims
    • NEPA
Principal Laws:
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Description: Challenge to highway widening project in California.
  • Pacificans for a Scenic Coast v. California Department of Transportation
    Docket number(s): 3:15-cv-02090-VC
    Court/Admin Entity: N.D. Cal.
    Case Documents:
    Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary
    09/02/2016 Order Download Summary judgment granted to plaintiffs on Endangered Species Act claims and to Caltrans on NEPA, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act claims. The federal district court for the Northern District of California ruled against the plaintiffs on their National Environmental Policy Act claims but found violations of the Endangered Species Act.
    06/23/2016 Opposition Download Opposition filed by plaintiffs to Caltrans' cross-motion for summary judgment and reply memorandum in support of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.
    05/08/2015 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Three environmental advocacy organizations commenced a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Northern District of California against federal and state agencies that authorized a freeway widening project in the City of Pacifica, California. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act for the project failed to determine the significance of project greenhouse gas emissions and had failed to describe, estimate, or calculate the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project's construction phase.

© 2023 · Sabin Center for Climate Change Law · U.S. Litigation Chart made in collaboration with Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP

The materials on this website are intended to provide a general summary of the law and do not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.