Case Law Details
Hall v. Regional Transportation Commission of S. Nevada
Project Description:
This project involves the construction of a traffic intersection between the Las Vegas Beltway and Lake Mead Boulevard near Las Vegas, Nevada. In 1996, Clark County issued a draft Tier 1 EIS for the Beltway project. Later that year, FHWA issued a record of decision approving the Tier 1 EIS. Clark County then determined that the project could go forward without federal funding. As a result, in September 1997, FHWA concluded that the Beltway project did not involve a major federal action under NEPA and withdrew and terminated its environmental review process.
362 Fed. Appx. 694
362 Fed. Appx. 694
U.S. Court of Appeals – 9th Circuit
01/15/2010
Las Vegas Beltway – Interchange Project
Highway
Case Summary
In February 2008, the plaintiffs filed suit against FHWA, U.S. DOT, the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, the Nevada Department of Transportation, and Clark County, Nevada. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants failed to comply with NEPA and the Federal Aid Highways Act in approving the project. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that FHWA failed to hold adequate public hearings in violation of NEPA and the Federal Aid Highway Act, and they also alleged that the Defendants violated NEPA by attempting to “de-federalize” the project – that is, by terminating the federal process and proceeding with the project as a non-federal action. The plaintiffs then sought declaratory and injunctive relief to halt the construction of the project. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. In June 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs then appealed to the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In this decision, issued on January 15, 2010, the Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court’s decision.
Key Holdings
Litigation Procedure
Statute of Limitation. The District Court had held that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred because they were filed outside the applicable six-year statute of limitations. (Note: FHWA had not issued a 180-day statute of limitations notice, so the general six-year statute of limitations applied.) The Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s decision. The Court of Appeals found that:
The statute of limitations period began to run on the date FHWA published a notice in the Federal Register, announcing that the EIS for the Beltway was being withdrawn.
Approximately 10 years passed after the Federal Register notice was filed, before the plaintiffs filed their lawsuit. Therefore, the lawsuit ‘was over four years too late.” The plaintiffs raised several arguments on appeal, asking the court to consider the case timely even though it was filed 10 years after FHWA had terminated the NEPA process. The court rejected all of these arguments.
The plaintiffs claimed that FHWA was required to give them “actual notice” of the decision. The court found that it was sufficient to provide “constructive notice” by publishing the notice in the Federal Register.
The plaintiffs claimed that Clark County was required to comply with NEPA even after termination of federal involvement. The court rejected this argument, without any specific discussion.
The plaintiffs claimed that there was a “continuing violation” of NEPA, not just a violation that occurred at a specific point in time when FHWA terminated the EIS. The court found that this argument fails, because the “continuing violations” doctrine “is not applicable in the context of an APA claim for judicial review/.”
The plaintiffs argued that the statute of limitations should be tolled (placed on hold), because of the defendants’ misconduct. The court rejected this argument as well, holding that the statute should be tolled because of Defendants’ alleged misconduct, even if accepted, would not save Hall’s claims from the time bar. Hall admits that he wrote to Defendants about the same concerns raised in his complaint in April 1997. Whatever tolling may have been justified, the tolling period would have lifted at the point he had actual notice of the facts giving rise to his claims.
The plaintiffs argued that the potential for future federal funding created a new NEPA obligation, which FHWA had violated. The court found that “speculations about future federal funding, especially where any federal funding would ultimately be only a small portion of the overall project cost, are insufficient to trigger NEPA compliance requirements.” For all of these reasons, the Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court’s decision to dismiss the case based on statute of limitations grounds.
File Attachment
Download the decision