Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Fitzgerald Reno, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Transportation
Citation: 60 F. App'x 53Docket: No. 02-15288; D.C. No. CV-01-00193-PMP
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; February 25, 2003; Federal Appellate Court
Plaintiff-Appellants appeal the district court’s dismissal of their case for lack of standing and the denial of a preliminary injunction against the Reno Transportation Rail Access Corridor Project (ReTRAC). The court affirms the dismissal, noting that it has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. In evaluating the motion to dismiss, the court limited its review to the complaint and attached affidavits. To establish prudential standing under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), plaintiffs must demonstrate interests within NEPA’s environmental “zone of interests,” which does not include purely economic concerns. The court found that the plaintiffs’ claims primarily revolved around economic interests rather than environmental ones. Specifically, the taxpayer organization, TTAX, lacked standing because its environmental interests were not relevant to its members. Other plaintiffs raised concerns about potential environmental harms, such as water contamination, but these issues were not asserted in their affidavits. Instead, the complaint focused on the adverse effects of noise, dust, vibrations, and fumes on their businesses. While appellants mentioned the impact on a historic building housing the Men’s Club, the complaint did not reference its historic value, and the only affidavit addressing the building did not express concern for its preservation, focusing instead on financial implications. Although noise and other factors could potentially confer standing, the plaintiffs failed to articulate these concerns from a non-business perspective. The court affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction, stating that plaintiffs did not meet the criteria for such relief. They needed to show either a likelihood of success on the merits combined with a possibility of irreparable harm or that serious questions were raised with a favorable balance of hardships. The district court concluded that the likelihood of success on the merits was low and that the balance of hardships favored ReTRAC, which aimed for environmental and aesthetic improvements. In summary, the court upheld both the dismissal for lack of standing and the denial of the preliminary injunction, affirming the lower court's findings. The ruling is not intended for publication and cannot be cited except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.