Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Judgment and Partial Injunction,, Honolulutraffic.com v. Federal Transit Admin., No. 11-0307 AWT (Dec. 27, 2012)

Judgment and Partial Injunction,, Honolulutraffic.com v. Federal Transit Admin., No. 11-0307 AWT (Dec. 27, 2012)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,182|Likes:
Published by robert_thomas_5

More info:

Published by: robert_thomas_5 on Dec 28, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF or read online from Scribd
See more
See less



HONOLULUTRAFFIC.COM; CLIFFSLATER; BENJAMIN CAYETANO;WALTER HEEN; HAWAII’STHOUSAND FRIENDS; THE SMALLBUSINESS HAWAIIENTREPRENEURIAL EDUCATIONFOUNDATION; RANDALL W. ROTH;and DR. MICHAEL UECHI,Plaintiffs,vs.FEDERAL TRANSITADMINISTRATION; LESLIEROGERS, in his official capacity asFederal Transit Administration RegionalAdministrator; PETER M. ROGOFF, inhis official capacity as Federal TransitAdministration Administrator; UNITEDSTATES DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION; RAY LAHOOD,in his official capacity as Secretary of Transportation; THE CITY ANDCOUNTY OF HONOLULU; andWAYNE YOSHIOKA, in his officialcapacity as Director of the City andCounty of Honolulu Department of Transportation,Defendants,||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||CV No. 11-0307 AWT
Case 1:11-cv-00307-AWT Document 202 Filed 12/27/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 9092
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728- 2 -FAITH ACTION FOR COMMUNITYEQUITY; PACIFIC RESOURCEPARTNERSHIP; and MELVIN UESATO,Intervenors - Defendants.||||||After briefing, hearing, and disposition of this case on the merits,
see HonoluluTraffic.com v. Fed. Transit Admin.
, 2012 WL 1805484 (D. Hawaii 2012)(partial grant of summary judgment); Order on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment,filed Nov. 1, 2012 (“Summary Judgment Order”), the parties and the court addressed theappropriate remedy. The parties submitted additional briefing on the scope of anyremedies, including any equitable relief. The remedy phase was fully argued and heardon December 12, 2012. After due consideration of those arguments, briefs, and therecord, the court now enters its final Judgment, which shall include partial injunctiverelief, as set forth below.As reflected in its prior orders, the court granted summary judgment to Plaintiffson three of their § 4(f) claims – claims arising under § 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 303. The court granted summary judgment toDefendants on all other claims raised by Plaintiffs, which include Plaintiffs’ remaining §4(f) claims, all claim arising under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §4321
et seq.
, and all claims arising under § 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,16 U.S.C. § 470f. In entering its partial permanent injunction, the court has consideredthe well-recognized equitable factors that apply,
see, e.g., Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms
, 130 S. Ct. 2743, 2756 (2010), and finds that, to the extent Defendants actions areenjoined, the four-factor test, on balance favors Plaintiffs, including: (1) irreparableinjury: (2) the inadequacy of monetary relief; (3) the balance of hardships; and (4) thepublic interest.
his matter is remanded to the FederalTransit Administration, but without vacatur of the Record of Decision, to comply with thecourt’s Summary Judgment Order.
Case 1:11-cv-00307-AWT Document 202 Filed 12/27/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 9093

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->