Environmental NGOs have sued EPA in a Seattle, Washington federal district court claiming that EPA has not taken any steps to implement the measures recommended in NMFS’ ESA consultation biological opinions for diazinon, malathion, chlorpyrifos, carbaryl, carbofuran, and methomyl. Dow AgroSciences and CropLife America intervened in the case, and filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings in it.
The Environmental NGO plaintiffs have a filed a response opposing the Intervenors’ motion. According to them
Intervenors argue that Plaintiffs’ complaint failed to demonstrate standing, and failed to allege a sufficiently detailed set of facts to seek relief for EPA’s violations of § 7 and § 9 of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1536(a)(2), 1538. Each of these arguments is premised on a misunderstanding of the law, a mischaracterization of Plaintiffs’ claims, and a highly selective reading of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. The Court should reject this eleventh-hour effort to dismiss or further delay resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims.
The Industry Intervenors have replied to this response. Among other thing, they argue that “Plaintiffs efforts to rescue the standing allegations of the Amended Complaint fail because they misconceive the nature of Intervenors’ standing challenge.”
● Click here to Enviros’ response.
● Click here to read Intervenors’ reply.