Message
×
loading..

California Natural Resources Agency v. Raimondo ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 THE CALIFORNIA NATURAL No. 1:20−CV−00426−DAD−EPG 11 RESOURCES AGENCY, et al.., ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR 12 Plaintiff, PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION WITH 13 CONDITIONS ON BRIEFING v. 14 (Doc. Nos. 13 & 24) WILBUR ROSS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiffs, the People of the State of California, California’s Natural Resources Agency 19 (Resources Agency), and California’s Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) (collectively, 20 “California”), bring this lawsuit against the National Marine Fisheries Service (NFMS), the U.S. 21 Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), and various 22 official representatives of those agencies. (Doc. No. 51, First Amended Complaint (FAC).) 23 Plaintiffs’ first and second claims for relief challenge the adoption by NMFS and FWS, 24 respectively, of “biological opinions” prepared pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 25 16 U.S.C § 1531 et seq., regarding the impact of the long-term operation of the Central Valley 26 Project (CVP) and the State Water Project (SWP) (collectively, “Water Projects”) on various 27 ESA-listed species. More specifically, the first and second claims for relief allege that NMFS and 28 FWS violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706, in various ways by 1 concluding that the Water Projects would not jeopardize the continued existence of the ESA- 2 listed species addressed in each biological opinion. Plaintiffs also bring claims against 3 Reclamation under the ESA (third claim for relief), and the National Environmental Policy Act 4 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. (fourth claim for relief). Finally, Plaintiffs allege in their fifth 5 claim for relief that Reclamation has violated the APA by failing to comply with the California 6 Endangered Species Act (CESA), which compliance plaintiffs allege is required by federal law, 7 namely Section 3406(b) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (CVPIA), Pub. 8 L. No. 102–575, 106 Stat. 4700 (1992), and Section 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902, 43 U.S.C. 9 § 383. 10 On March 25, 2020, this case was transferred to this district from the U.S. District Court 11 for the Northern District of California in light of related cases already pending before the 12 undersigned. (Doc. No. 26.) 13 Two sets of motions to intervene were filed before the transfer. On March 10, 2020, the 14 San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority (Authority) and Westlands Water District 15 (Westlands) moved to intervene. (Doc. No. 13.) On March 19, 2020, a motion to intervene was 16 filed by a consortium of SWP contractors, the State Water Contractors (SWC), and its member 17 agencies, which include the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Kern County 18 Water Agency, Central Coast Water Agency, and Solano County Water Agency. (Doc. No. 24.) 19 Both sets of applicant-intervenors seek to intervene in this action as defendants as a matter of 20 right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), or, alternatively, as a matter of 21 permission pursuant to Rule 24(b). 22 An applicant is entitled to intervene as a matter of right if: (1) the motion is timely; 23 (2) the applicant claims a “significantly protectable” interest relating to the property or transaction 24 which is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant is situated such that the disposition of the 25 action may as a practical matter impair or impede its ability to protect that interest; and (4) the 26 applicant’s interest is not adequately represented by the parties to the action. Wilderness Soc. v. 27 U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc); see also Allied Concrete and 28 Supply Co. v. Baker, 904 F.3d 1053, 1067 (9th Cir. 2018). Permissive intervention “requires 1 (1) an independent ground for jurisdiction; (2) a timely motion; and (3) a common question of 2 law and fact between the movant’s claim or defense and the main action,” but “[w]here the 3 proposed intervenor in a federal-question case brings no new claims, the jurisdictional concern 4 drops away.” Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Geithner, 644 F.3d 836, 843-44 (9th Cir. 5 2011) (citing Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 473 (9th Cir. 1992)). “The 6 decision to grant or deny [permissive] intervention is discretionary, subject to considerations of 7 equity and judicial economy.” Garza v. County of Los Angeles, 918 F.2d 763, 777 (9th Cir. 8 1990); see also Donnelly v. Glickman, 159 F.3d 405, 412 (9th Cir. 1998). When exercising this 9 discretion, the court must “consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the 10 adjudication of the original parties’ rights.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3); see also Donnelly, 159 F.3d 11 at 412. 12 California does not object to permissive intervention by either set of applicant-intervenors. 13 Faced with similar motions in the companion case Pacific Federation of Fishermen’s 14 Associations, et al., v. Ross, et al., 1:20-cv-00431 DAD SAB (PCFFA v. Ross), where plaintiffs 15 likewise did not oppose permissive intervention, the court allowed permissive intervention by the 16 Authority and Westlands (1:20-cv-00431, Doc. No. 37 (entered by the transferor court)) and 17 SWC (1:20-cv-00431, Doc. No. 121 (entered by the undersigned)). Likewise, the court finds 18 permissive intervention appropriate here. 19 As the undersigned has previously mentioned in PCFFA v. Ross (see id.), in the context of 20 a highly complex case such as this one, and particularly in light of the time-sensitive nature of the 21 motion for preliminary injunction now pending before it, the court can and will impose 22 reasonable conditions upon briefing submitted by any intervenor in this action regardless of the 23 method of intervention. See Advisory Committee Notes on Rule 24, 28 U.S.C. App., p. 567 24 (“intervention of right . . . may be subject to appropriate conditions or restrictions responsive 25 among other things to the requirements of efficient conduct of the proceedings”), cited with 26 approval in Stringfellow v. Concerned Neighbors in Action, 480 U.S. 370, 383 (1987) (Brennan, 27 J., concurring in part). Accordingly, the court takes the path of least resistance in connection with 28 ///// wOAOe 4: YVONNE SOMME I EN OY OT Mt 1 | the present motions and will grant the unopposed motions for permissive intervention with 2 | conditions. 3 Applicants plainly meet the requirements for permissive intervention. These parties have 4 | been permitted to intervene in numerous previous disputes over biological opinions covering the 5 || Water Projects. See, e.g., Natural Res. Defense Council v. Bernhardt, 1:05-CV-1207-DAD-EPG 6 | (Doc. No. 213); Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Ass’ns v. Gutierrez, 1:06-CV-00245- 7 | OWW-GSA (Doc. No. 45); Golden Gate Salmon Ass’n v. Ross, 1:17-cv-01172-LJO-EPG (Doc. 8 | No. 34). 9 The court will only address in this order the imposition of conditions on applicant- 10 | intervenors’ briefing to be submitted in connection with the pending motion for preliminary 11 || injunction, leaving page limits for the merits phase briefing to be determined at a later date and 12 | preferably by stipulation. In order to ensure that plaintiffs’ pending motion is not mooted by the 13 || passage of time required to digest and analyze the parties’ various arguments and evidentiary 14 | submissions, briefing must be constrained, either by stipulation or by the court. All intervenors 15 | are instructed to avoid the submission of duplicative briefing or evidence on issues covered by 16 | other defendants or intervenor-defendants. All parties are forewarned that any duplicative 17 | briefing will be disregarded by the court. 18 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ | Dated: _ April 22, 2020 Vila A Drag 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Document Info

Docket Number: 1:20-cv-00426

Filed Date: 4/23/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/19/2024