Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Frosh Latest Purple Line Case Filing - 4-10-17

    Uploaded by

    AJ Metcalf
    This document is the State of Maryland's reply memorandum in support of its motion for an expeditious ruling on pending summary judgment motions in a case regarding the Purple Line transit project. The State argues that further delay of a ruling risks causing the abandonment of the project due to rising costs and loss of funding. It maintains that a ruling is needed by April 28th to preserve the status quo given the substantial investments and importance of the project to the communities it would serve.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Frosh Latest Purple Line Case Filing - 4-10-17

    Uploaded by

    AJ Metcalf
    1K views6 pages
    This document is the State of Maryland's reply memorandum in support of its motion for an expeditious ruling on pending summary judgment motions in a case regarding the Purple Line transit project. The State argues that further delay of a ruling risks causing the abandonment of the project due to rising costs and loss of funding. It maintains that a ruling is needed by April 28th to preserve the status quo given the substantial investments and importance of the project to the communities it would serve.

    Original Description:

    .

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is the State of Maryland's reply memorandum in support of its motion for an expeditious ruling on pending summary judgment motions in a case regarding the Purple Line transit project. The State argues that further delay of a ruling risks causing the abandonment of the project due to rising costs and loss of funding. It maintains that a ruling is needed by April 28th to preserve the status quo given the substantial investments and importance of the project to the communities it would serve.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    1K views6 pages

    Frosh Latest Purple Line Case Filing - 4-10-17

    Uploaded by

    AJ Metcalf
    This document is the State of Maryland's reply memorandum in support of its motion for an expeditious ruling on pending summary judgment motions in a case regarding the Purple Line transit project. The State argues that further delay of a ruling risks causing the abandonment of the project due to rising costs and loss of funding. It maintains that a ruling is needed by April 28th to preserve the status quo given the substantial investments and importance of the project to the communities it would serve.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 6

    Case 1:14-cv-01471-RJL Document 135 Filed 04/10/17 Page 1 of 6

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    FRIENDS OF THE CAPITAL CRESCENT *


    TRAIL, et al.,
    *

    Plaintiffs, *

    v. *

    FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, * Civil Case No. 14-01471 (RJL)


    et al.,
    Defendants, * Hon. Richard J. Leon

    and *

    The STATE OF MARYLAND, *

    Defendant Intervenor. *

    * * * * * * * * *

    STATE OF MARYLANDS REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR


    EXPEDITIOUS RULING ON PENDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS

    The premise of the State of Marylands (State) Motion For Expeditious Ruling is that

    the passage of time has changed the status quo in this case. With no decision from the Court on

    the Federal Transit Administrations (FTA) determination not to prepare a Supplemental

    Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), and no decision on the remaining issues addressed in

    the long-completed summary judgment motions, the mere passage of time may create the

    outcome that Plaintiffs clearly seek - abandonment of the Purple Line project (the Project). It

    would be an injustice to the people of the State and to the FTA not to have a decision on the

    merits of Plaintiffs claims regarding the August 2013 Final Environmental Impact Statement

    1
    Case 1:14-cv-01471-RJL Document 135 Filed 04/10/17 Page 2 of 6

    and the March 2014 Record of Decision (ROD) in a timeframe that will not cause grave harm

    to the Project. The State submitted this Motion to the Court to assure that the Court was

    informed as to the effect of the prospective passage of time.

    When the Court issued its August 3, 2016 Order vacating the ROD approving the Project,

    it did so intending to preserve the status quo. As stated in the Courts August 3 Memorandum, a

    temporary halt in the project would allow the FTA to engage in the requisite supplemental

    analysis with respect to impacts of safety and ridership issues being experienced by the

    Washington Metro on the viability of the Purple Line. The Court recognized that speed was of

    the essence in reaching a resolution of the issues, stating that the State should prepare the

    analysis as expeditiously as possible. Memorandum Order at 9. Contrary to Plaintiffs

    implications, the Defendants began the requisite supplemental analysis immediately. The

    analysis has been prepared, and FTA has issued a decision on the analysis and submitted that

    analysis and decision to the Court. All issues are ripe for a decision.

    When Plaintiffs filed this case in 2014, they failed to seek any preliminary injunctive

    relief. Even when it became clear that the FTA and the State were about to sign the Full Funding

    Grant Agreement (FFGA), Plaintiffs did not seek any form of preliminary injunctive relief. As

    this Court noted in its August 3 Order, it chose to issue a decision that addressed the single flaw

    it had identified in FTAs analysis and vacate the ROD, so that the FTA would not be able to

    issue the FFGA. By doing this, the Court prevented the State from proceeding with construction

    of the project. The Court clearly determined that a short delay would preserve the status quo.

    The State takes the unusual step of filing this motion to inform the Court that further delay goes

    beyond monetary delay damages and puts the entire project at risk. Without an expeditious

    decision, there will be no justice on the merits.

    2
    Case 1:14-cv-01471-RJL Document 135 Filed 04/10/17 Page 3 of 6

    The mere passage of time causes grave harm to the State, Montgomery County, Prince

    Georges County, and the businesses and citizens who are relying on the Project to create jobs

    and to improve access to public and commercial facilities and neighborhoods. The loss of the

    Project would be monumental, as are the potential monetary damages. As previously established

    in the declarations filed by Charles Lattuca (ECF 98-3 and 116-2), each month of delay could

    result in an estimated $13 million in additional cost. Also, as previously discussed, further delay

    puts at risk the $400 million that the State has already invested in making this vital public transit

    project a reality. In addition, termination of the Project could result in additional termination

    costs and delay damages, resulting in a total cost in the range of $650 million. ECF 116-2 at 15.

    Given the decades of study, broad public support, and the importance of the Project to the local

    communities (see the amicus briefs and supporting declarations filed by Prince Georges County

    - ECF 111 and Montgomery County - ECF 112), cancellation of the Project as a result of

    litigation delays would cause severe prejudice to the interests of the public.

    It is clearly in the public interest to reach a decision on the legal issues as expeditiously

    as possible. Nothing in Plaintiffs response to the States motion provides a reason for the

    Court to delay its decision. Contrary to Plaintiffs assertion, the State does not dispute that the

    Court has the inherent power to control its docket. Plaintiffs are correct that the State is

    confident that the FEIS and the additional analysis of the Metro rail issues are sufficient under

    applicable law and that once the Court has an opportunity to review the full merits of the case, it

    will rule in the States favor. However, even should the Court find a flaw in the process, it is in

    the public interest for the Court to issue an expeditious final decision on the merits of the claims

    raised in this case so that the State can take whatever further steps it deems necessary in its

    efforts to pursue and implement this vital transportation project. If the Courts docket does not

    3
    Case 1:14-cv-01471-RJL Document 135 Filed 04/10/17 Page 4 of 6

    permit an expeditious review of the now completed supplemental analysis, which was the basis

    for vacation of the ROD, the preservation of the status quo dictates that the ROD be reinstated

    while this litigation remains pending.

    Conclusion

    The State respectfully requests that the Court issue a final decision as expeditiously as

    possible, but no later than April 28, 2017, on all pending dispositive motions in this case,

    including the parties cross-motions for summary judgment (ECF 47, 55, 56) and the

    Defendants renewed motions for summary judgement (ECF 115, 116). In the alternative, the

    State requests that the Court vacate that portion of its August 3, 2016 Order (ECF 96) that

    vacated the ROD for the Project.

    4
    Case 1:14-cv-01471-RJL Document 135 Filed 04/10/17 Page 5 of 6

    Dated: April 10, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

    BRIAN E. FROSH
    Attorney General of Maryland

    /s/ Linda M. Strozyk DeVuono


    LINDA M. STROZYK DeVUONO (Bar No.
    429514)
    Assistant Attorney General
    100 Charles Street, Tower II, Suite 700
    Baltimore, MD 21201
    (410) 451-3722
    Email: ldevuono@sha.state.md.us

    ALBERT M. FERLO (Bar No. 290395)


    PERKINS COIE LLP
    700 Thirteenth Street, N.W., Suite 600
    Washington, D.C. 20005-3960
    Telephone: 202.654.6262
    Facsimile: 202.654.6211
    Email: aferlo@perkinscoie.com

    Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenor

    5
    Case 1:14-cv-01471-RJL Document 135 Filed 04/10/17 Page 6 of 6

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    I hereby certify that on April 10, 2017, a copy of the foregoing document was served via the
    CM/ECF system on the following counsel of record.

    David Brown
    Knopf & Brown
    brown@knopf-brown.com

    Kevin W. McArdle
    U.S. Department of Justice
    Keven.mcardle@usdoj.gov

    Jeremy Hessler
    U.S. Department of Justice
    Jeremy.hessler@usdoj.gov

    Tyler L. Burgess
    U.S. Department of Justice
    Tyler.burgess@usdoj.gov

    John M. Fitzgerald
    4502 Elm Street
    Chevy Chase, MD 20815
    johnmfitzgerald@earthlink.net

    You might also like