Center for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt ( 2021 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Center for Biological Diversity, et al., No. CV-20-00461-TUC-JGZ 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 David Bernhardt, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental 16 Complaint. (Doc. 18.) The motion is fully briefed. (Docs. 19, 21.) After consideration of 17 the parties’ briefing, the Court will grant the motion. 18 I. Background 19 In this action, Plaintiffs challenge the issuance of twelve leopard import permits, 20 asserting FWS acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and contrary to law when it (1) did not 21 consider the required factors set forth in 50 C.F.R. § 23.61, (2) failed to use the best 22 available biological information, and (3) did not take precautionary measures and made a 23 non-detriment finding where insufficient information was provided and the factors were 24 not met. (Doc. 10 at 57-62.) Plaintiffs seek to supplement the complaint with three 25 additional leopard import permits that were authorized after the complaint was filed, 26 challenging these additional permits on the same grounds as those in the original complaint. 27 II. Discussion 28 “On motion and reasonable notice, the court may, on just terms, permit a party to || serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that 2|| happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). The 3|| purpose of supplemental pleadings is to “promote as complete an adjudication of the 4|| dispute between the parties as is possible.” LaSalvia v. United Dairymen of Arizona, 804 F.2d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). Motions to amend pursuant to Rule || 15(d) should be granted so long as there is “some relationship . . . between the newly || alleged matters and the subject matter of the original action.” Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 8 || 474 (th Cir. 1988). However, motions to amend should not be granted if “undue prejudice 9|| to the opposing party will result.” LaSalvia, 804 F.2d at 1119. 10 Applying these standards, the Court will grant the motion to supplement the |} complaint. The Court finds, and Plaintiffs and Federal Defendants agree, that there is a sufficient relationship between the additional leopard permits authorized after the 13 || complaint that are to be supplemented and the subject matter of the original complaint, as 14|| Plaintiffs seek to challenge the newly alleged permits on the same grounds. The Court 15 || further finds supplementing the complaint with the additional leopard permits will promote 16 || as complete an adjudication of the dispute between the parties as possible and will not 17 || prejudice Defendants in light of the current stage of the proceedings. 18 Incorporating arguments from their motion to dismiss, Defendants assert that the 19 || Court should deny the motion to supplement on futility grounds for lack of standing. 20 || Because the Court has found that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged standing, the Court finds that the proposed supplemental pleading will not be futile. Ill. Conclusion 23 For the foregoing reasons, 24 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental 25 || Complaint (Doc. 18) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file the Supplemental Complaint || within three (3) days of the date of this Order. 27 Dated this 21st day of June, 2021. . 28 = oe $ Honorate veal 4, United States District Judge _2-