Free Motion to Dismiss - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-01488-SI

Document 16

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 1 of 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

RONALD J. TENPAS Assistant Attorney General Environment & Natural Resources Division JEAN E. WILLIAMS, Section Chief LAWSON E. FITE, Trial Attorney (Oregon Bar No. 055573) U.S. Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division Wildlife & Marine Resources Section Ben Franklin Station, P.O. Box 7369 Washington, D.C. 20044-7369 Telephone: (202) 305-0217 Facsimile: (202) 305-0217 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ) ) MAN AGAINST EXTINCTION, a/k/a ) RICHARD MAX STRAHAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) H. DALE HALL, Director of the United ) States Fish and Wildlife Service, and ) JAMES W. BALSIGER, Acting Assistant ) Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine ) Fisheries Service, ) ) Defendants. ) )

No. C 08-01488 SI NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) AND 12(b)(6) Date: August 22, 2008 Time: 9:00 a.m. Courtroom: 10, 19th Floor

Case 3:08-cv-01488-SI

Document 16

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 2 of 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
No. C 08-1488 SI Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

NOTICE TO THIS HONORABLE COURT AND COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, under Civil L.R. 7-2, that on August 22, 2008, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Courtroom of The Honorable Susan Illston, United States District Judge, Northern District of California, at the United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, 95814, Federal Defendants H. Dale Hall, Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("FWS"), and James W. Balsiger, Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS"), will argue their motion, set forth below, to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. MOTION Federal Defendants move to dismiss this case pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Because all three of Plaintiff's claims are properly cognizable only under the citizen-suit provision of the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"), 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1)(A), Plaintiff was required to notify the Federal Defendants of his intent to file suit at least 60 days prior to bringing suit. 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(2)(A)(i). Because Plaintiff failed to provide proper notice, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims and therefore must dismiss the Complaint under Rule 12(b)(1). Additionally, Count 2 of Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, as a listing decision under Section 4 of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1533, does not trigger a duty to consult under Section 7 of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1536. Finally, Defendant Hall must be dismissed from the case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because the FWS lacks jurisdiction over the species at issue here, and therefore is not a proper party to the action. This motion is based on the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities; the other filings in this case; and the oral arguments at hearing. WHEREFORE, Federal Defendants pray that this Court grant the Motion to Dismiss, and thereby dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint.

-i-

Case 3:08-cv-01488-SI

Document 16

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 3 of 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

I. II.

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A. B. C. Listing Under ESA Section 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 ESA Section 7 Consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Citizen Suits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

III. IV. V.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 STANDARD OF REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 A. Plaintiff's Complaint Should Be Dismissed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1. Plaintiff Was Required to Provide 60-day Notice for Each Claim. . . . . . . 8 a. b. Counts 1 Is a Citizen-Suit Claim Under 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1)(C). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Count 2 Is a Citizen-Suit Claim Under 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1)(A). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Count 3 Is a Citizen-Suit Claim Under 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1)(C). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Plaintiff's February 2007 Letter Does Not Constitute the Required Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

13 14 15 d. 16 17 18 3. 19 20 21 C. 22 VI. 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. 2. c.

Plaintiff May Not Evade the Notice Requirement by Bringing an ESA Claim in the Guise of an APA Claim. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 This Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Plaintiff's Claims and Must Dismiss Them. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Count 2 of Plaintiff's Complaint Fails to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim Against H. Dale Hall and the FWS. . . . . . . . . . 15

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

No. C 08-1488 SI Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss

-ii-

Case 3:08-cv-01488-SI

Document 16

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 4 of 24

1 2 3 4 FEDERAL CASES

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Alsea Valley Alliance v. Lautenbacher, No. 06-6093-HO, 2007 WL 845901 (D. Or. Mar. 14, 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Amercian Rivers v. NMFS, 126 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir.1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

5 American Rivers v. NMFS, 109 F.3d 1484 (9th Cir.1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6 Association of California Water Agencies v. Evans, 386 F.3d 879, 884 (9th Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . 9 7 Basel Action Network v. Maritime Admin., 370 F. Supp. 2d 57, 76 (D.D.C. 2005) . . . . . . . . 13 8 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 16 9 Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 172, 173 (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 12 10 Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879, 903 (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11 Brem-Air Disposal v. Cohen, 156 F.3d 1002, 1004-05 (9th Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 12 Citizens Interested in Bull Run v. Edrington, 781 F.Supp. 1502, 1509 (D. Or. 1991) . . . . . . . 12 13 Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495, 1505 (9th Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 14 15 16 17 Federation of Fly Fishers v. Daley, 200 F. Supp. 2d 1181, 1185 (N.D. Cal. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . 9 18 Forest Guardians v. Johanns, 450 F.3d 455, 458 (9th Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1438, 1453 (2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 27 28
No. C 08-1488 SI Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss

Environmental Prot. Info. Ctr. v. Simpson Timber Co., 255 F.3d 1073, 1079 (9th Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Envirowatch v. Fukino, No. 07-16-SOM-BMK, 2007 WL 1933132 at *3-4 (D. Haw. June 28, 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Forest Guardians v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 462 F. Supp. 2d 1177, 1185 (D.N.M. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Hallstrom v. Tillamook County, 493 U.S. 20, 31 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 13 Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Hawaii County Green Party v. Clinton, 124 F.Supp.2d 1173, 1193 (D. Haw. 2000) . . . . . . . . . 12 Hawksbill Sea Turtle v. FEMA, 126 F.3d 461, 464 (3d Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Kern County Farm Bureau v. Badgley, No. 02-5376-AWI-DLB, 2002 WL 34236869 at *11 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

-iii-

Case 3:08-cv-01488-SI

Document 16

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 5 of 24

1 2 3

McCrary v. Gutierrez, 528 F. Supp. 2d 995, 998 (N.D. Cal. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 11, 13 National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct. 2518, 2526 (2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 15 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

4 NRDC v. Kempthorne, 539 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1179 (E.D. Cal. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5 Oregon Natural Res. Council v. Kantor, 99 F.3d 334, 338 n.1 (9th Cir. 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6 Oregon Natural Res. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 834 F.2d 842, 851 (9th Cir. 1987) . . . . . . . 12 7 Pacific Legal Found. v. Andrus, 657 F.2d 829, 836 (6th Cir. 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8 Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
No. C 08-1488 SI Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss

Seattle Audubon Soc'y v. Moseley, 798 F. Supp. 1473, 1483 (W.D. Wash. 1992), aff'd, Seattle Audubon Soc'y v. Espy, 998 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 South Yuba River Citizens League v. NMFS, No. 06-2845-LKK-JFM, 2007 WL 3034887 at *8 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Southwest Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 143 F.3d 515, 520 (9th Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 7, 12, 13 Strahan v. New England Aquarium, 25 Fed. Appx. 7, 10 (1st Cir. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 180 (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 14 Washington Toxics Coal. v. EPA, 413 F.3d 1024, 1034 (9th Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Whisnant v. United States, 400 F.3d 1177, 1179 (9th Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Zands v. Nelson, 779 F. Supp. 1254, 1258 (S.D. Cal. 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

FEDERAL STATUTES 5 U.S.C. § 553(e) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 U.S.C. § 704 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 16 U.S.C. § 1532(20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 16 U.S.C. § 1532(6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 16 U.S.C. § 1533 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

-iv-

Case 3:08-cv-01488-SI

Document 16

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 6 of 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(1)(A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 8, 15 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 16 U.S.C. § 1533(c)(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 16 U.S.C. § 1536 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 14 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1)(A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 6, 9, 10 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 16 U.S.C. §§ 1532(15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 16 U.S.C. §§ 1533(b)(4)-(6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 16 U.S.C. §§ 1533(d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 16 U.S.C. §§ 1540(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1)(C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 8, 10 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(2)(C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 42 U.S.C. § 4331 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 FEDERAL REGULATIONS

19 50 C.F.R § 402.03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 20 50 C.F.R. § 224.101(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 16 21 50 C.F.R. § 402.01(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 22 50 C.F.R. § 402.13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 23 50 C.F.R. § 402.13(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 24 50 C.F.R. § 402.14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 25 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 26 50 C.F.R. § 424.11(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 27 28
No. C 08-1488 SI Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss

-v-

Case 3:08-cv-01488-SI

Document 16

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 7 of 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

50 C.F.R. § 424.14(b)(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 4 50 C.F.R. § 424.14(b)(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 50 C.F.R. § 424.14(b)(3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

No. C 08-1488 SI Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss

-vi-

Case 3:08-cv-01488-SI

Document 16

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 8 of 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

RONALD J. TENPAS Assistant Attorney General Environment & Natural Resources Division JEAN E. WILLIAMS, Section Chief LAWSON E. FITE, Trial Attorney (Oregon Bar No. 055573) U.S. Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division Wildlife & Marine Resources Section Ben Franklin Station, P.O. Box 7369 Washington, D.C. 20044-7369 Telephone: (202) 305-0217 Facsimile: (202) 305-0217 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ) ) MAN AGAINST EXTINCTION, a/k/a ) RICHARD MAX STRAHAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) H. DALE HALL, Director of the United ) States Fish and Wildlife Service, and ) JAMES W. BALSIGER, Acting Assistant ) Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine ) Fisheries Service, ) ) Defendants. ) ) I. INTRODUCTION Federal Defendants in this action, H. Dale Hall, Director of the United States Fish & Wildlife Service ("FWS"), and James W. Balsiger, Acting Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS"),1/ hereby provide points and authorities in support of their motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint ("Compl.") pursuant to rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal

No. C 08-01488 SI MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) AND 12(b)(6) Date: August 22, 2008 Time: 9:00 a.m. Courtroom: 10, 19th Floor

25 Rules of Civil Procedure. This Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims because Plaintiff 26 27 28 James W. Balsiger is substituted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d) for his predecessor, William T. Hogarth.
1/

Case 3:08-cv-01488-SI

Document 16

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 9 of 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

failed to provide the required 60 days' notice before bringing suit, which is a jurisdictional prerequisite under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"). Indeed, in one instance Plaintiff has brought suit only 12 days after the challenged decision, such that 60 days' notice was impossible. Even if this Court had jurisdiction, Plaintiffs' second claim should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) because, as a matter of law, ESA Section 7 consultation is not required in connection with ESA Section 4 listing decisions. Finally, under Rule 12(b)(6), Plaintiff's claims must be dismissed as against Defendant Hall and FWS because the FWS does not administer the ESA with respect to the whale species that are the subject of the Complaint. II. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND This case concerns the decision of the National Marine Fisheries Service that right whales in the North Atlantic and North Pacific Oceans should be listed as distinct endangered species. Prior to 2008, right whales in the Northern Hemisphere were listed as one endangered species. The Plaintiff in this action, Richard Max Strahan, or Man Against Extinction, brings claims relating to this listing decision. Plaintiff asserts that NMFS's listing decision is in violation of Section 4 of the ESA, asserts that NMFS has violated Section 7 of the ESA by failing to consult on the listing decision, and brings a challenge under ESA Section 4 to NMFS's 90-day finding on Plaintiff's petition to list one global species of right whale. A. Listing Under ESA Section 4

The Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544, "is intended to protect and conserve endangered and threatened species and their habitats." National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct. 2518, 2526 (2007). Section 4 of the ESA directs

No. C 08-1488 SI Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss

-2-

Case 3:08-cv-01488-SI

Document 16

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 10 of 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the Secretary2/ to determine which species should be listed as endangered or threatened.3/ 16 U.S.C. § 1533. A species may be "listed" as endangered or threatened either on the initiative of the Secretary through the "candidate process" or as a result of the "petition process." Once the species is listed, it enjoys a variety of legal protections. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1533(d), 1536, 1538; see also Tennessee Valley Auth. (TVA) v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 180 (1978). Any "interested person" may initiate the listing process by filing a listing petition. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3); 5 U.S.C. § 553(e). NMFS must, within 90 days, "[t]o the maximum extent practicable," determine whether the petition "presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted." 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(A); see also 50 C.F.R. § 424.14(b)(1). If this "90-day finding" is positive, then NMFS has 12 months from the date of the petition to determine whether the species will be listed. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(B). To list a species NMFS must follow the rulemaking procedures described in 16 U.S.C. §§ 1533(b)(4)-(6). A "negative" 90-day finding ends the process, and the ESA authorizes judicial review of such a finding. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(C)(ii).4/ NMFS regulations define "substantial information" as "that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be

Section 4 of the ESA provides that the Secretary of Commerce is responsible for administering the ESA with respect to whales. See 16 U.S.C. §§ 1532(15), 1533(a)(2); 50 C.F.R. § 402.01(b). The Secretary has delegated this authority to NMFS. The species at issue in this case ­ the North Atlantic right whale and North Pacific right whale ­ are under the jurisdiction of NMFS. 50 C.F.R. § 224.101(b).
3/

2/

The ESA states that a species is endangered if it is "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range." 16 U.S.C. § 1532(6). A species is threatened if it "is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range." 16 U.S.C. § 1532(20). Where a positive initial finding is made, the Secretary has one year from the receipt of the petition to undertake a status review and to issue a "12-month finding." 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(B); 50 C.F.R. § 424.14(b)(3). The 12-month finding must be either that the petitioned action is "warranted," "not warranted," or "warranted but precluded" by other priorities. Id.
No. C 08-1488 SI Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss
4/

-3-

Case 3:08-cv-01488-SI

Document 16

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 11 of 24

1 2 3 4

warranted." 50 C.F.R. § 424.14(b)(1). The regulations further specify four factors for the Service's consideration, namely whether the petition: (i) (ii) Clearly indicates the administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any common name of the species involved; Contains detailed narrative justification for the recommended measure, describing, based on available information, past and present numbers and distribution of the species involved and any threats faced by the species; Provides information regarding the status of the species over all or a significant portion of its range; and Is accompanied by appropriate supporting documentation in the form of bibliographic references, reprints of pertinent publications, copies of reports or letters from authorities, and maps.

5 6 (iii) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
5/

(iv)

50 C.F.R. § 424.14(b)(2). Pursuant to section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, the Secretary lists a species that he determines to be threatened or endangered because of one or more of five statutory factors, any one of which is sufficient to support a listing determination.5/ NMFS must make a listing determination "solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available to [it] after conducting a review of the status of the species and after taking into account" existing efforts to protect the species. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(1)(A); see also 50 C.F.R. § 424.11(b), (f). B. ESA Section 7 Consultation

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA prohibits federal agencies from taking any action that is likely to "jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species. . . ." 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). To achieve this objective, the ESA requires federal agencies to consult with the FWS or NMFS whenever a federal action "may affect" an endangered or threatened species. 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a). The procedure for "formal consultation" is described at length at 50 C.F.R. § 402.14. Formal consultation generally culminates in the issuance of a "biological opinion" by FWS

25 26 27 28

The factors are: (A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(1). -4-

No. C 08-1488 SI Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss

Case 3:08-cv-01488-SI

Document 16

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 12 of 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

or NMFS which advises the action agency whether jeopardy is likely to occur for any listed species and, if so, whether "reasonable and prudent alternatives" exist to avoid a jeopardy situation. There are two criteria that trigger the requirements for consultation. First, the action agency must have reason to believe "that an endangered species or a threatened species may be present in the area affected by [its] project. . . ." 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(3). The action agency must also have reason to believe "that implementation of such action will likely affect such species." Id. Thus, if the action agency determines that a listed species "may be present" and that the action "may affect" a listed species, it must initiate formal consultation with the FWS or NMFS, unless the FWS or NMFS concurs with the action agency's finding that the action is "not likely to adversely affect" a listed species. 50 C.F.R. § 402.13(b). The ESA's implementing regulations also recognize the use of "informal consultation" to assist an action agency in determining whether and when further consultation is necessary. The process of informal consultation--discussions and correspondence between the wildlife agency (FWS or NMFS) and the action agency or its designated representative-- allows the wildlife agency to assist the action agency in determining whether an action will adversely affect a threatened or endangered species. If a federal agency determines, with written concurrence of FWS or NMFS that the action "is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat, the consultation process is terminated, and no further action is necessary." 50 C.F.R. § 402.13. In other words, if the action agency determines its action is not likely to adversely affect listed species and obtains written concurrence from the FWS, the agency has fulfilled its obligations under ESA section 7 and there is no need for formal consultation. Forest Guardians v. Johanns, 450 F.3d 455, 458 (9th Cir. 2006). C. Citizen Suits

Primary responsibility for enforcement and implementation of the ESA is entrusted to officials of the Federal Government. See, e.g., 16 U.S.C. §§ 1540(a), (b), and (e)(6). The Act also contains a provision authorizing citizen enforcement suits allowing any person to commence a civil suit "to enjoin any person, including the United States and any other governmental instrumentality
No. C 08-1488 SI Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss

-5-

Case 3:08-cv-01488-SI

Document 16

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 13 of 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

or agency . . . who is alleged to be in violation of any provision of [the Act] or regulation issued under the authority thereof...." 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1)(A). A citizen suit under Section

1540(g)(1)(A) may not be commenced "prior to sixty days after written notice of the violation has been given to the Secretary, and to any alleged violator of any such provision or regulation." 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(2)(A)(i). The Act further permits a citizen-suit "against the Secretary where there is alleged a failure of the Secretary to perform any act or duty under section 1533 of this title which is not discretionary with the Secretary." 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1)(C). Such suit is prohibited "prior to sixty days after written notice has been given to the Secretary." 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(2)(C). The 60-day notice requirement is a mandatory, jurisdictional prerequisite to suit. Hallstrom v. Tillamook County, 493 U.S. 20, 31 (1989); Southwest Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 143 F.3d 515, 520 (9th Cir. 1998). III. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND All species of right whale (members of the genus Eubalaena) were listed as endangered in 1970 pursuant to the Endangered Species and Conservation Act of 1969. 35 Fed. Reg. 8,491, 8,495 (June 2, 1970). In August 2005, NMFS received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity requesting that the agency consider listing the North Pacific right whale as a separate species on the basis of newly discovered genetic data. After following the review process set forth in section 4(b) of the ESA, NMFS proposed in December 2006 to list the North Atlantic right whale, Eubalaena glacialis, and the North Pacific right whale, Eubalaena japonica, as separate endangered species. NMFS published a final rule listing both species on March 6, 2008, stating that "new genetic data now provide unequivocal support to distinguish three right whale lineages as separate phylogenetic species." 73 Fed. Reg. 12,024, 12,026 (Mar. 6, 2008). The rule became effective April 7, 2008. Id. Plaintiff submitted a petition to NMFS in March 2007 requesting that the agency list all species of right whale as one global species named "black whale." NMFS determined that the petition failed to present "substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the listing of
No. C 08-1488 SI Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss

-6-

Case 3:08-cv-01488-SI

Document 16

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 14 of 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the global populations of right whales as a single species may be warranted," and accordingly issued a negative 90-day finding on the petition. 72 Fed. Reg. 29,973, 29,974 (May 30, 2007). NMFS also addressed Plaintiff's petition in the final listing rule for the two whale species, and again specifically rejected the suggestion that right whales should be listed as one global species. 73 Fed. Reg. at 12,026. This action was filed March 18, 2008. Plaintiff challenges the listing rule for the North Atlantic and North Pacific right whales, challenges NMFS's negative 90-day finding on his petition, and asserts that NMFS has violated Section 7 of the ESA in regard to the listing rule. Concurrently with filing the Complaint, Plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order enjoining the final rule listing the North Atlantic and North Pacific right whales. Doc. No. 5, filed Mar. 18, 2008. This Court denied the motion on April 1, 2008. Doc. No. 8. IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a federal court to dismiss a claim that does not fall within the court's subject matter jurisdiction. Where a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) makes a facial attack on the complaint, asserting that the complaint's allegations fail to establish subject matter jurisdiction as a matter of law, the court "take[s] the allegations in the plaintiff's complaint as true." Whisnant v. United States, 400 F.3d 1177, 1179 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004)). Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a court to dismiss a claim on the basis of a dispositive issue of law. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326 (1989). When reviewing a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), a court is confined to reviewing the allegations pleaded in the complaint and must accept those allegations as true, resolving any factual issues in a light most favorable to the nonmovant. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), abrogated on other grounds, Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982). In order for a complaint to survive a 12(b)(6) motion, the factual allegations in the complaint "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). A complaint must be dismissed if it does not plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1974.
No. C 08-1488 SI Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss

-7-

Case 3:08-cv-01488-SI

Document 16

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 15 of 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

V.

ARGUMENT A. Plaintiff's Complaint Should Be Dismissed.

For each of Plaintiff's three claims for relief, the ESA requires that Plaintiff give 60 days' notice before bringing suit. In each case, however, Plaintiff has failed to do so. Thus this Court lacks jurisdiction over the case at bar and should dismiss the Complaint. 1. Plaintiff Was Required to Provide 60-day Notice for Each Claim. a. Counts 1 Is a Citizen-Suit Claim Under 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1)(C).

Count 1 of Plaintiff's Complaint challenges NMFS's final rule listing the North Atlantic and North Pacific right whales as separate species. Plaintiff alleges that NMFS "has no authority under the ESA" to take this action and that NMFS has acted without "any basis in scientific fact or law" in listing the two species. Compl. ¶ 10. Plaintiff thus alleges that NMFS has violated its nondiscretionary duty, pursuant to Section 4 of the ESA, to make listing decisions solely on the basis of the "best scientific and commercial data available." 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(1)(A). This claim is an ESA citizen suit for which 60-day notice is required. Specifically, a claim that asserts that an agency has failed to use the "best scientific and commercial data available" in making a determination under Section 4 is properly cognizable only under the ESA's nondiscretionary citizen-suit provision, 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1)(C). In Bennett

v. Spear, the Supreme Court held that a claim was a citizen suit where the claim alleged that "the [agency] implicitly determine[d] critical habitat without complying with the mandate of § 1533(b)(2) that the Secretary `tak[e] into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.'" 520 U.S. 154, 172 (quoting 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(2)). The Court held that the ESA established nondiscretionary procedures for Section 4 decisions and established a "categorical requirement that, in arriving at [its] decision," the agency "use `the best scientific data available.'" Id. Similarly, the Ninth Circuit held in Association of California Water Agencies v. Evans, 386 F.3d 879, 884 (9th Cir. 2004) ("ACWA"), that a challenge to a final critical habitat rule is an ESA citizen suit. Because, like the suits in Bennett and ACWA,
No. C 08-1488 SI Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss

-8-

Case 3:08-cv-01488-SI

Document 16

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 16 of 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Count 1alleges violation of nondiscretionary agency duties under ESA Section 4, Plaintiff is required to comply with the notice requirement of the citizen-suit provision, and has failed to do so. Moreover, this Court has previously held that a challenge to a final listing rule is an ESA citizen suit under 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1)(C). Federation of Fly Fishers v. Daley, 200 F. Supp. 2d 1181, 1185 (N.D. Cal. 2002). Accordingly, NMFS was under a non-discretionary duty when it issued the final rule listing the North Atlantic and North Pacific right whales, and any challenge to the rule must be preceded by 60-day notice. Because Plaintiff has failed to provide such notice, Count 1 must be dismissed. b. Count 2 Is a Citizen-Suit Claim Under 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1)(A).

Plaintiff's second claim alleges that NMFS has violated Section 7 of the ESA by not initiating consultation (with itself) regarding the decision to list the Northern right whale as two separate species. Compl. ¶¶ 13-15. Plaintiff specifically alleges that NMFS is in violation of its "mandatory and non-discretionary duty under Section 7 of the ESA to consult with the appropriate ESA administrative agency." Compl. ¶ 14.6/ This claim is an ESA citizen-suit under section 11(g)(1)(A) of the ESA, and Plaintiff was therefore required to give 60 days' notice before bringing the claim. Because Plaintiff indisputably failed to do so, the claim must be dismissed. Section 11(g)(1)(A) of the ESA provides that a citizen suit may be brought "to enjoin any person, including the United States. . . who is alleged to be in violation of any provision of this chapter or regulation issued under the authority thereof." 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1)(A). A claim that an action agency has failed to comply with the terms of ESA Section 7 is cognizable only under this provision of the ESA. Specifically, when a plaintiff brings a claim alleging that a government agency has impermissibly failed to initiate or reinitiate Section 7 consultation, the claim is an ESA citizen suit. Washington Toxics Coal. v. EPA, 413 F.3d 1024, 1034 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that

6/

Defendants note that section 11(g)(1)(C) of the ESA applies only to nondiscretionary duties within "section 1533 of this title," that is, Section 4 of the ESA. Thus an allegation of a violation of a duty in Section 7 is not cognizable under Section 11(g)(1)(C). -9-

No. C 08-1488 SI Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss

Case 3:08-cv-01488-SI

Document 16

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 17 of 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

claim seeking to compel EPA to initiate consultation was ESA citizen suit); Environmental Prot. Info. Ctr. v. Simpson Timber Co., 255 F.3d 1073, 1079 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that claim seeking to compel FWS to reinitiate consultation was ESA citizen suit, and noting that in Bennett v. Spear "the Court expressly recognized that citizen suits are a permissible means to enforce the substantive provisions of the ESA against regulated parties-including government agencies like the FWS in its role as the action agency."). c. Count 3 Is a Citizen-Suit Claim Under 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1)(C).

Count 3 alleges that NMFS's negative 90-day finding violates Section 4 of the ESA. Plaintiff alleges that "Defendant NMFS' denial of the Black Whale Petition was arbitrary and capricious and otherwise not according to law," and asserts that "the claimed genetic differences of these said violations are too insignificant to justify any possible claim that these populations represent separate species." Compl. ¶ 18. Again, Plaintiff alleges that NMFS has violated its nondiscretionary duty to use the best scientific and commercial data available in making a determination under Section 4 of the ESA. As demonstrated above, such a challenge to an agency decision under Section 4 of the ESA is a citizen suit under Bennett and ACWA. Thus, Plaintiff was required to notify NMFS 60 days before filing suit, and has failed to do so. Indeed, a court in this District recently held that a claim challenging a 90-day finding is an ESA citizen suit requiring 60-day notice. McCrary v. Gutierrez, 528 F. Supp. 2d 995, 998 (N.D. Cal. 2007). In McCrary, the plaintiff presented a challenge to NMFS's negative 90-day finding on his petition to delist a portion of the range of the Central California coho (silver) salmon. Id. at 997. McCrary alleged that NMFS's denial of his petition "was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law in violation of the APA." Id. at 998. The McCrary court held that, under ACWA, "the subject matter of Plaintiff's sole cause of action falls within the citizen suit provision of the ESA," and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction over the case because the plaintiff had failed to perform the required notice. Id. at 999. In the present case, because Plaintiff has failed to provide 60-day notice Plaintiff's third claim should likewise be dismissed because this Court lacks jurisdiction over it.
No. C 08-1488 SI Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss

- 10 -

Case 3:08-cv-01488-SI

Document 16

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 18 of 24

1 2

d.

Plaintiff's February 2007 Letter Does Not Constitute the Required Notice.

Plaintiff may assert that a letter of February 24, 2007, which is attached as Exhibit 1, suffices 3 as the requisite notice. This letter is insufficient because it was sent before any of the alleged 4 violations occurred. The 90-day finding was made on May 30, 2007, and the whale listing on March 5 6, 2008. Courts have consistently held that a party cannot provide "prospective" or "anticipatory" 6 notice of a violation; instead, a notice is only effective if given after the date of the action 7 challenged. American Rivers v. NMFS, 109 F.3d 1484 (9th Cir.1997), amended and superseded by 8 American Rivers v. NMFS, 126 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir.1997); NRDC v. Kempthorne, 539 F. Supp. 2d 9 1155, 1179 (E.D. Cal. 2008); Kern County Farm Bureau v. Badgley, No. 02-5376-AWI-DLB, 2002 10 WL 34236869 at *11 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2002); South Yuba River Citizens League v. NMFS, No. 11 06-2845-LKK-JFM, 2007 WL 3034887 at *8 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2007). This is in line with the 12 purpose of the notice provision to give the parties time to compromise before entering litigation. 13 A party cannot reasonably assume it will be aggrieved by agency action until the action has actually 14 occurred. Especially where a petition is concerned, prospective notice served with the petition would 15 impermissibly read the 60-day notice provision out of the statute. Accordingly, Plaintiff's letter of 16 February 24, 2007 cannot save his claims from dismissal. 17 Even if the letter were deemed valid notice, the letter was sent on behalf of GreenWorld, not 18 on behalf of the present Plaintiff, Man Against Extinction, or Richard Max Strahan. Accordingly, 19 because the notice provision must be strictly construed, this letter would be insufficient even if 20 timely. Alsea Valley Alliance v. Lautenbacher, No. 06-6093-HO, 2007 WL 845901 (D. Or. Mar. 21 14, 2007) (holding that plaintiff-intervenor may not rely on original plaintiff's notice). Likewise, 22 because Plaintiff's letter does not mention ESA Section 7, even if it were timely, it could not serve 23 as proper notice for Count 2. 24 Reclamation, 143 F.3d 515, 521 n.2 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that notice provision is strictly 25 construed and that notice letter must give "notice of the actual violation relied on in issuing the 26 complaint"). 27 28
No. C 08-1488 SI Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss

Southwest Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of

- 11 -

Case 3:08-cv-01488-SI

Document 16

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 19 of 24

1 2

2.

Plaintiff May Not Evade the Notice Requirement by Bringing an ESA Claim in the Guise of an APA Claim.

As shown above, Plaintiff's claims fall within the framework of the ESA citizen-suit 3 provision even though they are pled under the APA. Accordingly 60-day notice is a jurisdictional 4 prerequisite to suit. Because Plaintiff has not provided this notice, this Court lacks jurisdiction over 5 Plaintiff's claims no matter how they are pled. The APA independently provides for review only 6 of "final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court," 5 U.S.C. § 704. 7 Thus, "a particular claim may only be brought either under the APA or the ESA­a plaintiff may not 8 cho[o]se her statutory weapon." Hawaii County Green Party v. Clinton, 124 F. Supp. 2d 1173, 9 1193 (D. Haw. 2000); Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. at 173. 10 As the Supreme Court has stated, "Congress did not intend the general grant of review in the 11 APA to duplicate existing procedures for review of agency action." Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 12 U.S. 879, 903 (1988); Oregon Natural Res. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 834 F.2d 842, 851 (9th Cir. 13 1987) ("Where plaintiffs may otherwise proceed under the citizen suit provision [of the Clean Water 14 Act], they should not be allowed to bypass the explicit requirements of the Act established by 15 Congress through resort to . . . the APA"); Brem-Air Disposal v. Cohen, 156 F.3d 1002, 1004-05 16 (9th Cir. 1998) (finding court lacks jurisdiction over APA challenges because Congress has provided 17 an "adequate remedy" through the RCRA citizen-suit provision); Citizens Interested in Bull Run v. 18 Edrington, 781 F. Supp. 1502, 1509 (D. Or. 1991) ("plaintiffs may not circumvent the notice 19 requirement of the ESA by merely re-styling their claims to fit within the APA"); McCrary,528 F. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
7/

Supp. 2d at 998(same).7/

Decisions interpreting the CWA and RCRA citizen-suit provisions are helpful in the present case because those provisions are similarly worded to the ESA's citizen-suit provision and because the notice requirements in all the statutes serve similar policy goals.
No. C 08-1488 SI Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss

- 12 -

Case 3:08-cv-01488-SI

Document 16

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 20 of 24

1 2

3.

This Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Plaintiff's Claims and Must Dismiss Them.

The only remedy for defective notice is dismissal. The Ninth Circuit has held that "[t]his 3 sixty day notice requirement is jurisdictional," and that "failure to strictly comply with the notice 4 requirement acts as an absolute bar to bringing suit under the ESA." Southwest Ctr., 143 F.3d at 520 5 (9th Cir. 1998)(citations omitted). Indeed, if the plaintiff in an ESA suit fails to comply with the 6 notice requirement, then the court has "no choice but to dismiss the complaint . . . for lack of subject 7 matter jurisdiction." Id. at 522; Hallstrom v. Tillamook County, 493 U.S. 20, 32 (1989) (requiring 8 dismissal "after years of litigation and a determination on the merits"); Hawksbill Sea Turtle v. 9 FEMA, 126 F.3d 461, 464 (3d Cir. 1997) (dismissing suit where plaintiff notified Secretary of the 10 Interior, who had jurisdiction over sea turtles while on land, but where plaintiff failed to notify 11 Secretary of Commerce, who had jurisdiction over sea turtles while in the water). 12 Because the notice period is jurisdictional, it may not be tolled or otherwise equitably 13 relieved. Southwest Ctr., 143 F.3d at 520 (notice provision cannot be given a "flexible or pragmatic 14 construction"). Accordingly, defective notice cannot be cured after suit has been filed. Envirowatch 15 v. Fukino, No. 07-16-SOM-BMK, 2007 WL 1933132 at *3-4 (D. Haw. June 28, 2007); Forest 16 Guardians v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 462 F. Supp. 2d 1177, 1185 (D.N.M. 2006); Basel Action 17 Network v. Maritime Admin., 370 F. Supp. 2d 57, 76 (D.D.C. 2005); Zands v. Nelson, 779 F. Supp. 18 1254, 1258 (S.D. Cal. 1991). Even if a pro se plaintiff were entitled to relief from the notice 19 provision, the present Plaintiff is well aware of this requirement and its application, and therefore 20 would not be entitled to any such relief. See Strahan v. New England Aquarium, 25 Fed. Appx. 7, 21 10 (1st Cir. 2002) (affirming dismissal of claim for failure to submit 60-day notice letter). 22 B. 23 24 25 26 27 28
No. C 08-1488 SI Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss

Count 2 of Plaintiff's Complaint Fails to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted.

Even if this Court had jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Complaint, Plaintiff's second claim should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. ESA Section 7 consultation is not required for ESA Section 4 listing decisions, and therefore, even taking the allegations in Plaintiff's

- 13 -

Case 3:08-cv-01488-SI

Document 16

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 21 of 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

complaint as true, Count 2 fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Count 2 alleges that NMFS and FWS have violated "mandatory and discretionary duties under Section 7(a) of the ESA concerning their decision to revoke the 1969 Right Whale Listing and their decision to add the two Phony Species to the ESA Species List." Compl. ¶ 15. Thus, Plaintiff asserts that NMFS and FWS were required to initiate consultation on the decision to list the northern right whale as two species. Plaintiff's claim is foreclosed by the plain text of the ESA. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires each federal agency to "insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out" by the agency "is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species." 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). Plainly, then, Section 7 protections apply only if a species is listed pursuant to Section 4. Id. The listing determination, therefore, is purely administrative and cannot result in negative effects on a species. Thus a decision to list or delist cannot be subject to the consultation requirement, because the listing decision determines whether consultation is ever required for that species; otherwise, administration of the Act would become circular. Because the statute is clear, no further inquiry is required. TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 184 n.29 (1978). Similarly, the Ninth Circuit held in Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495, 1505 (9th Cir. 1995), that preparation of an environmental impact statement ("EIS") under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") was not required when an agency designated critical habitat for the northern spotted owl under Section 4 of the ESA. NEPA requires that an agency prepare an EIS for every "major Federal action[] significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." 42 U.S.C. § 4332. The court held that "the NEPA procedures do not apply to federal actions that do nothing to alter the natural physical environment." Id. "If the purpose of NEPA is to protect the physical environment, and the purpose of preparing an EIS is to alert agencies and the public to potential adverse consequences to the land, sea or air, then an EIS is unnecessary when the action at issue does not alter the natural, untouched physical environment at all." Id.; see also Pacific Legal Found. v. Andrus, 657 F.2d 829, 836 (6th Cir. 1981) (holding that NEPA does not require an EIS
No. C 08-1488 SI Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss

- 14 -

Case 3:08-cv-01488-SI

Document 16

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 22 of 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

for listing decisions, and stating "the statutory mandate of ESA prevents the Secretary from considering the environmental impact when listing a species as endangered or threatened."). Cf. Seattle Audubon Soc'y v. Moseley, 798 F. Supp. 1473, 1483 (W.D. Wash. 1992) (holding that decision under Section 4 to designate critical habitat "does not in itself invoke any management program"), aff'd, Seattle Audubon Soc'y v. Espy, 998 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1993). In the present case, the purpose of the ESA is to prevent extinction of listed species; a decision as to how to classify or list a species is a reflection of the status of the species, not a determinant, and has no physical effect on the species. This is particularly true with the decision challenged here, where both species of northern right whale continue to be listed as endangered. Accordingly, NMFS cannot be required to consult pursuant to Section 7 regarding its decision to list the North Atlantic and North Pacific right whales as separate endangered species Moreover, as described above, NMFS is obligated to list a species under Section 4 if the best available scientific and commercial data indicates that the species is endangered or threatened. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(1)(A). Consultation cannot be required when the action is one over which the agency does not retain discretion or control. 50 C.F.R § 402.03; National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct. 2518, 2534-35 (2007) (upholding the regulation as a reasonable interpretation of the ESA under the framework of Chevron v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984)). Therefore, even if this Court has jurisdiction over the case, Plaintiff's second claim for relief must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. C. Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim Against H. Dale Hall and the FWS.

North Atlantic and North Pacific right whales ­ and in fact all whales listed under the ESA ­ are under the sole jurisdiction of NMFS. 50 C.F.R. § 224.101(b); Oregon Natural Res. Council v. Kantor, 99 F.3d 334, 338 n.1 (9th Cir. 1996); Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2090, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 1 (transferring authority from the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of Commerce). NMFS is the agency that issued the listing rule and the 90-day finding that Plaintiff challenges. NMFS is the agency that Plaintiff alleges has violated Section 7 of the ESA. Compl.
No. C 08-1488 SI Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss

- 15 -

Case 3:08-cv-01488-SI

Document 16

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 23 of 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

¶ 14. Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot state a claim against Defendant H. Dale Hall and the FWS that is "plausible on its face," Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007). Plaintiff alleges that FWS has acted in concert with NMFS by altering the List of Endangered and Threatened Fish and Wildlife to include the North Atlantic and North Pacific right whales as separate species. Compl. ¶ 11. This allegation does not save Plaintiff's Complaint from dismissal. When NMFS determines that listing a species is warranted, the ESA requires that FWS include the species on the list. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(c)(1) ("The Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal Register a list of all species determined by him or the Secretary of Commerce to be endangered species and . . . threatened species"). This publication is purely ministerial and allows for no exercise of independent judgment on the part of the Secretary of the Interior. Accordingly, even taking Plaintiff's allegations as true, FWS cannot have taken any action that could lead to a claim for relief. Alternatively, the ministerial nature of the list indicates that any injury is not fairly traceable to FWS, and that FWS is unable to redress Plaintiff's claims. Therefore Plaintiff would lack Article III standing against FWS as a matter of law. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1438, 1453 (2007) (litigant "must [establish] that . . . the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant, and that it is likely that a favorable decision will redress that injury."). Accordingly, even if this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims, the Court should dismiss Defendant Hall from the action. VI. CONCLUSION Plaintiff's claims, regardless of whether they are pled under the ESA or APA, are all citizen suits under the ESA. Thus Plaintiff was required to notify NMFS 60 days before bringing suit. Because Plaintiff did not do so, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Complaint and must dismiss it. Even if this Court had jurisdiction, Plaintiff's second claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and therefore should be dismissed. Moreover, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendant H. Dale Hall, who should be dismissed from this suit entirely. Accordingly, Defendants pray this Court grant the Motion to Dismiss, and thereby dismiss Plaintiff's
No. C 08-1488 SI Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss

- 16 -

Case 3:08-cv-01488-SI

Document 16

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 24 of 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Complaint.

Dated: June 16, 2008

Respectfully Submitted, RONALD J. TENPAS, Assistant Attorney General JEAN E. WILLIAMS, Section Chief /s/ Lawson E. Fite LAWSON E. FITE, Trial Attorney (Oregon Bar No. 055573) U.S. Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division Wildlife & Marine Resources Section Ben Franklin Station P.O. Box 7369 Washington, DC 20044-7369 Phone: (202) 305-0217 Fax: (202) 305-0275 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
No. C 08-1488 SI Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss

- 17 -

Case 3:08-cv-01488-SI

Document 16-2

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 1 of 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ) ) MAN AGAINST EXTINCTION, a/k/a ) RICHARD MAX STRAHAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) H. DALE HALL, Director of the United ) States Fish and Wildlife Service, and ) JAMES W. BALSIGER, Acting Assistant ) Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine ) Fisheries Service, ) ) Defendants. ) )

No. C 08-01488 SI CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 16, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such to the attorneys of record. /s/ Lawson E. Fite LAWSON E. FITE

Case 3:08-cv-01488-SI

Document 16-3

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 1 of 2

GreenWorld
236 West Portal Avenue, #I95 San Francisco CA 94127

24 February 2007 To: Carlos Gutierrez Department of Commerce Washington D. C. Administrator National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Washington D. C. Re: NOAA's Final Action to Bifurcate the Global Northern Right Whale Populations into Two Separate Individual Species.

To the Above Parties: GreenWorld and I oppose NOAA's decision to re-list the populations of the Northern Right Whales as two independent species for designation as listed species under the Endangered Species Act. On 27 December 2006, NOAA published a notice in the Federal Register that announced its decision to re-list the Northern Right Whale as two separate species. There is no scientific basis for such a re-listing. No independent scientist in history has ever proposed such a taxonomic scheme. The Pacific and Atlantic populations of Northern Right Whale are morphologically indistinguishable by the most trained expert in marine mammals. The sole basis of NOAA's proposal is research conducted by a single group of geneticists without any taxonomic experience at all. They were funded by NOAA to deliberately produce the intended result of showing some modest difference in the genome of populations of Right Whales. These modest differences cannot be interpreted scientifically support the existance of three Right Whale species. In fact, it supports the opposite conclusion. The global populations of Right Whales are in reality a single species. We demand that NOAA designate all Right Whale populations as a single species with the common name of Black Whale as a listed species under the Endangered Species Act. All of the species of great whales in the world are each.recognized as a single species except for the Right Whale. There is only one species of Humpback Whale in the world. Genetic analysis has shown greater diversity in global populations in this species than in Right Whales. If anything NOAA should correct past mistakes in classification of the Right Whales and recognize the world populations of Right Whales as constituting a single species of whale, like all other species of great whales. The proposed relisting by NOAA has no possibility of serving the conservation needs of any Right Whale population. NOAA offers no such analysis in the proposal in the Federal Register. NOAA has no funding to produce two separate conservation programs for Right Whales. NOAA has failed to appoint recovery teams for any whale species. Its conservation efforts on whales are so modest as to not require the detailing of assigning a separate effort for different populations of right whales. It does not do this for Humpback Whales or any other species of whale. It has produced only one recovery plan for

Case 3:08-cv-01488-SI

Document 16-3

Filed 06/16/2008

Page 2 of 2

every species of great whale except the right whale. Why? NOAA felt the need to treat the Pacific Northern Right Whale population differently as far back as the adoption of the first recovery plan and clearly for factors that had nothing to do with the conservation needs of the whale. It was clearly based on arbitrary and capricious political and economic concerns about the Pacific population of these whales. At this time, we demand that NOAA hold a Public Hearing on this issue in Boston MA and Washington D. C. This message is sent after the deadline that you posted for these said requests. However I still ask for the said Public hearing and see no reason why asking for a Public hearing at this time should be denied merely for not being made by an arbitrary and capricious date set buy NOAA. This letter is also a notice pursuant to citizen suit provisions of the ESA, that at least sixty days from today, GreenWorld and I will bring suit against NOAA to stop it from re-listing the Northern Right Whale and designating its populations as two separate listed endangered species under the ESA. You may also consider this as a formal notice under the Federal Torts Act as a claim of injury by us of NOAA's negligent carrying out of ESA's non-discretionary and mandatory duties under the ESA in regards to listed species of large whales, including the Northern Right Whale, Southern Right Whale, Humpback Whale, Fin Whale, Sei Whale and Blue Whale, This negligence has caused much suffering and injury to us personally, including the loss of our aesthetic enjoyment of our immediate environment. This is also a petition pursuant to the ESA and the Administrative procedures act to list the global populations of the Right Whale as a single species with the common name Black Whale.

I would be glad to discuss these petitionhotices with you. I await your reply to these petitionhotices.

GreenWorld 617.233.3854