Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database
Collection

Lighthouse Resources Inc. v. Inslee

Lighthouse Resources Inc. v. Inslee 

3:18-cv-05005W.D. Wash.78 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
04/27/2021
Status Report
Joint status report filed.
04/27/2021
Decision
Complaints dismissed with prejudice.
04/19/2021
Decision
Order issued requiring parties to file joint status report regarding any remaining issues in case.
05/28/2019
Decision
Plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenor's Rule 54(b) motion denied.
In a lawsuit challenging the State of Washington’s denials of approvals needed for development of a coal export terminal, the federal district court for the Western District of Washington denied a motion for entry of final judgment with respect to two orders issued in 2018. One of the 2018 orders dismissed the State’s Commissioner of Public Lands as a defendant; the other order dismissed preemption claims under the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act and the Ports and Waterways Safety Act. In April 2019, the court stayed the action on Pullman abstention grounds due to pending state court challenges to the State’s denials. The plaintiffs (coal companies and the companies that propose to develop the coal export facility) and an intervenor railroad company have appealed both 2018 orders and the April 2019 stay order. The plaintiffs argued in their motion that the stay order was final and appealable and indicated that the motion for entry of final judgment on the 2018 orders was merely a “precautionary measure.” The district court concluded that judicial administrative interests and equities did not favor certifying the 2018 orders as final.

Lighthouse Resources, Inc. v. Inslee 

19-35415United States Ninth Circuit (9th Cir.)6 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
03/23/2021
Decision
Appeal dismissed.
After the developer of a proposed coal export terminal in Washington filed for bankruptcy and rejected its rights to the development site, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the developer’s appeal of a district court decision in the developer’s lawsuit asserting that Washington officials’ actions denying a Section 401 water quality certification and a sublease of aquatic lands were preempted by federal law and in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. The district court dismissed the preemption claims and abstained from considering the dormant Commerce Clause claims. In their motion to dismiss the appeal, the Washington officials and environmental groups that intervened on their behalf argued that the developer’s bankruptcy made the case moot.
01/20/2021
Motion To Dismiss
Joint motion to dismiss filed by defendants-appellees and intervenor-defendants-appellees.
02/19/2020
Reply
Joint reply brief filed by appellants.
01/06/2020
Amicus Motion/Brief
Amicus brief filed by California and other states in support of appellees-defendants.