BEFORE THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BOLD ALLIANCE et. al.

v. Docket No. 17-1822

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY

COMMISSION ​et. al.

PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR AN ORAL HEARING AND TO

EXPEDITE CONSIDERATION OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS
TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs ​BOLD ALLIANCE et al. submit this Motion to Request an Oral Argument

pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(f) and also ask the Court to expedite consideration of Defendants’

pending Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1657(a)). In support of this Motion, Plaintiffs state the following:

1. On December 21, 2017, Defendant Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

(“FERC”) filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (“FERC Motion to Dismiss”) (Dkt. No. 20).

2. On January 2, 2018, Defendant Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC (“MVP”) filed a

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (“MVP Motion to Dismiss”) (Dkt. No. 21).
 3. On January 3, 2018, Defendant Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (“ACP”) filed a

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(1) (“ACP Motion to Dismiss”). (Dkt. No. 22).

4. On January 22, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a brief in consolidated opposition to the three
1
motions to dismiss (“Plaintiffs’ Opp.”). (Dkt. No. 25).

5. On January 29, 2018, FERC filed a reply in support of its motion (Dkt. No. 27);

MVP filed a reply in support of its motion (Dtk. No. 26); and ACP filed a reply in support of its

motions (Dkt. No. 28). All three motions are fully submitted and are ripe for disposition by the

Court.

6. Plaintiffs respectfully request pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(f) that this Court

permit the parties to conduct oral argument before this Court with respect to the three

Defendants’ motions to dismiss, in that there are several significant statutory and constitutional

issues contested by the parties, and the decisional process would be significantly aided by oral

argument.

7. In addition, the facial statutory and constitutional infirmities raised by Plaintiffs

with respect to the Defendant Commission’s program for awarding certificates to natural gas

pipelines under the Natural Gas Act are ongoing, and if left unresolved, will continue to impact

not just the landowners who bring this challenge, but all landowners whose property falls in the

path of future pipelines. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request pursuant to the Federal

Courts Civil Priorities Act (“Priorities Act”), 28 U.S.C § 1657, that this Court to set an expedited

schedule of the requested oral argument on the docket and disposition of the Defendants’

1
On January 17, 2018, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time
to file their opposition (Dkt. No. 24).
motions to dismiss to the greatest possible extent for the reasons stated in the attached

Memorandum, which is fully incorporated herein by reference.

8. In accordance with Local Civil Rule 7(m), undersigned counsel has conferred

with counsel for the three Defendants with regards to this Motion.

9. All three Defendants OPPOSE this Motion.

10. If the Court decides to grant a hearing, the parties will confer about mutually

agreeable dates for such a hearing.

WHEREFORE​, Plaintiffs respectfully ask the Court to grant the attached proposed

Order for an Oral Hearing with respect to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and to grant this

Motion to Expedite Proceedings; and, for such other and further relief as to this Court deems just

and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

By: ___________________________
Carolyn Elefant
LAW OFFICES OF CAROLYN ELEFANT PLLC
1440 G Street NW, 8th Floor
Washington D.C. 20037
Phone: 202-297-6100
carolyn@carolynelefant.com
FERC Counsel to Plaintiffs Bold Alliance ​et. al.
 LCvR 7(m) Statement

Plaintiffs’ counsel hereby certifies that she sought consent to this Motion pursuant to

LCvR 7(m) and that Defendants did NOT grant such consent.

Respectfully submitted,

By: ___________________________
Carolyn Elefant
LAW OFFICES OF CAROLYN ELEFANT PLLC
1440 G Street NW, 8th Floor
Washington D.C. 20037
Phone: 202-297-6100
carolyn@carolynelefant.com
FERC Counsel to Plaintiffs Bold Alliance ​et. al.
 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BOLD ALLIANCE et. al.

v. Docket No. 17-1822

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY

COMMISSION ​et. al.

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR

ORAL ARGUMENT AND EXPEDITED SCHEDULING

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of the Plaintiffs’ Request for Oral Argument and to

Expedite Consideration on the Defendants’ Pending Motions to Dismiss and, any Opposition

thereto, and the entire record herein, it is this _______ day of ____________, 2018,

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED, and this matter be expedited at the

discretion of the Court, and Oral Argument be set on _________________ ________, 2018.

_________________________
RICHARD J. LEON
United States District Judge

Dated: