Government and Industry Ask Court to Order NGOs to Amend Their Complaint Again
In San Francisco federal district court litigation, environmentalists have filed an amended complaint in response to a court ruling that their original complaint against EPA was too broad. Their amended complaint challenges EPA’s approval of more than 50 active pesticide ingredients, a decrease from the almost 300 challenged by their original complaint.
The Government and Industry Intervenors have both filed motions asking the Court to order the Plaintiffs to amend their amended complaint in a manner that makes it comprehensible . The Industry Intervenors’ motion argues:
“This Court’s April 22, 2013 Order gave Plaintiffs unambiguous instructions on how to revise their complaint alleging non-compliance by Defendant U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) with the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C.§ 1531, et seq.1 Plaintiffs have not complied. Rather than adhering to the roadmap the Court provided, the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 160) has ballooned to 2,129 repetitive and often-ambiguous paragraphs that render it impossible for either Intervenor-Defendants or the Federal Defendants to respond. Thus, it is far from the “short and plain statement” of Plaintiffs’ claims required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).
On August 15, the Federal Defendants filed a Motion for More Definite Statement (ECF No. 168). The Intervenor-Defendants concur that, at the least, the new Amended Complaint is inadequate and that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e), Plaintiffs should be directed to try again. Intervenor-Defendants have prepared this memorandum as a supplement to the explanations in the Federal Defendants’ Motion and to further document why both Intervenor-Defendants’ and the Federal Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement should be granted.”
Click here to read Industry intervenors’ motion.