Federal Defendants Dispute Enviros’ ESA Consultation Claims in San Francisco Court Case
The Center for Biological Diversity has sued the Fish and Wildlife Service in a San Francisco United States District Court. CBD alleges that FWS has violated the Endangered Species Act and other federal statutes by failing to complete timely consultation on EPA’s pesticide registrations for atrazine, 2,4-D and alachlor.
The Enviro Plaintiffs and the Federal Defendants have met and submitted a report on this case, as required by Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Their joint Report to the Court includes the following statements:
“The case management conference in this matter is scheduled for May 15, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. before United States Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero.”
“Federal Defendants assert that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over one or more of Plaintiff’s claims.”
“Federal Defendants dispute Plaintiff’s characterization of the legal issues in this case and further deny that they have violated ESA § 7 or the APA. They additionally assert that the Court lack subject matter jurisdiction over one or more of Plaintiff’s claims, and Plaintiff lacks standing and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Additionally, Federal Defendants’ position is that Plaintiff’s entry into a settlement with the United States in Center for Biological Diversity v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 07-cv-2974 (N.D. Cal.) bars the claims Plaintiff attempts to bring here. Federal Defendants further assert that some or all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred by waiver, collateral estoppel, and/or the doctrines of res judicata and/or claim preclusion.”
“Federal Defendants intend to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings on or before May 15, 2015. Should the motion for judgment on the pleadings not fully resolve the case, Federal Defendants additionally intend to file a motion to determine the scope of the Court’s review within 15 days of the Court’s decision on the motion for judgment on the pleadings, and if the case has not been fully resolved by Federal Defendants’ motion, the parties would ultimately file cross motions for summary judgment.”
Click here to read the parties’ Rule 26 Report.
The Federal Defendants have also filed an answer to the Plaintiffs’ complaint. This answer is consistent with the Federal Defendants’ position as stated in the Rule 26 Report.
Click here to read the Federal Defendants’ Answer.