Litigation Procedure Standing. The plaintiffs alleged that, if the project were constructed, the jai alai business would be harmed because (1) the new traffic flows created by the project would decrease customer access to the business and, therefore, would result in negative economic impacts to the business and its employees, and (2) construction of the project would release contaminants into the environment and increase air and noise pollution around the business. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing, because the risk of harm was too speculative and because the plaintiffs’ interests were purely economic, not environmental, and thus were outside the “zone of interests” protected by NEPA. The court rejected both arguments and held that the plaintiffs did have standing to bring the lawsuit: “[T]his Court sides with those courts concluding that purely economic injuries with no connection to the environment are insufficient to fall within NEPA’s zone of interests…. “Despite Defendants’ assertions to the contrary, Plaintiffs’ have alleged more than purely economic injuries. Moreover, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ interests in their workplace environment, their individual health and safety, and their respective business or employment interests in Jai Alai all fall within NEPA’s zone of interests. Therefore, Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient factual allegations at this stage of the proceedings to survive Defendants’ challenges to standing.” Statute of Limitations. The court held that FHWA’s decisions in 2004 and 2012 were separate final agency actions, each of which was subject to challenge under the federal Administrative Procedure Act. The court then determined that each decision was subject to the six-year statute of limitations for lawsuits challenging federal agency approvals under 28 USC 2401(a). (This six-year period applies when FHWA has not issued a Federal Register notice that triggers a 150-day statute of limitations under 23 USC 139.) The court determined that challenges to the 2004 decision were time-barred because the six-year deadline had passed, but that challenges to the 2012 decision were timely. Therefore, the plaintiffs were allowed to proceed with their challenges to the 2012 decision. Motion to Dismiss. The defendants asked the court to dismiss the complaint for “failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted,” which is essentially a finding that the complaint is so flawed that the plaintiffs could not prevail even if all of the factual allegations in the complaint are assumed to be true. The court found that, while the complaint may be redundant, the defendants “are able to discern Plaintiffs’ allegations and should be able to properly defend themselves.” Therefore, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, which allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with the lawsuit. As of January 2015, the case remains pending.