ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS v. KIRKPATRICK (D.Me. 2004)

  • jdjungle
ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS, Plaintiff v. MARTHA KIRKPATRICK, Defendant

Civ. No. 02-149-B-WUnited States District Court, D. Maine.
February 17, 2004

HAROLD J. FRIEDMAN, MARTHA C. GAYTHWAITE, FRIEDMAN, GAYTHWAITE, WOLF LEAVITT, PORTLAND, ME, for Plaintiff ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS

JULIE ANNA POTTS, MAYER, BROWN, ROWE MAW, WASHINGTON, DC, for Plaintiff ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS

RUSSELL R. EGGERT, MAYER, BROWN, ROWE MAW, CHICAGO, IL, for Plaintiff ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS

DENNIS J. HARNISH, AUGUSTA, ME, for Defendant EPA, ME COMM

BENJAMIN W. LUND, PETER J.BRANN, BRANN ISAACSON, LEWISTON, ME, for Movant NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL OF MAINE, MAINE PEOPLES ALLIANCE, LEARNING DISABILITIES ASSOCIATION OF MAINE

JON P. DEVINE, JR., NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC, WASHINGTON, DC, for Movant NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL OF MAINE, MAINE PEOPLES ALLIANCE LEARNING DISABILITIES ASSOCIATION OF MAINE

NANCY S. MARKS, LAWRENCE M. LEVINE, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC., NEW YORK, NY, for Movant NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL OF MAINE, MAINE PEOPLES ALLIANCE, LEARNING DISABILITIES ASSOCIATION OF MAINE

ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JOHN WOODCOCK, District Judge

On July 17, 2003, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court her Recommended Decision on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, recommending that the Court deny the Plaintiff’s Motion and grant the Defendant’s Motion. On July 31, 2003, the Plaintiff filed its Objection to the Recommended Decision and a Motion Oral Argument on the Objection. On August 18, 2003, the Defendant and the amicicuriae parties each filed a separate Response to the Objection and, on August 20, 2003, the Defendant and the amici curiae parties filed a joint opposition to the Plaintiff’s Motion for Oral Arguments. The Plaintiff filed its reply to the responses on August 26, 2003.

The Plaintiffs Motion for Oral Argument is DENIED. The parties’ comprehensive memoranda provide an ample basis upon which to decide the Objection.

I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; I have made a denovo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision; and I concur with the recommendations of the

Page 2

United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in her Recommended Decision, and determine that no further proceeding is necessary.[1] ,[2]

1. It is ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Oral Arguments is DENIED:

2. It is further ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is AFFIRMED; and,

3. It is further ORDERED that the Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

[1] The Court has carefully reviewed those portions of the Recommended Decision that the Plaintiff argues contain either omissions of its statements of material facts or erroneous restatements of its statement of material facts. The Court concludes the alleged discrepancies are either immaterial or erroneous.
[2] The Magistrate Judge eschewed legislative history in favor of the plain language of the statute and instructed the Plaintiff, to the extent that it disagreed with her decision, to explain the materiality of such legislative history in its Objection to this Court. The Plaintiff has shown neither ambiguity in the language of the statute nor the materiality of the legislative history to the outcome of the case.