Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05572/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05572-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 05:551 Administrative Procedure Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PACIFIC CHOICE SEAFOOD COMPANY, 

et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PENNY PRITZKER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-05572-HSG 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 22

Pending before the Court is a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint 

brought by Federal Defendants Penny Pritzker, in her official capacity as United States Secretary 

of Commerce, and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Dkt. No. 22 (“MTD”). For the reasons 

articulated below, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Regulatory Background

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (the “Magnuson Act”) 

was established in part “to take immediate action to conserve and manage the fishery resources 

found off the coasts of the United States.” 16 U.S.C. § 1801(b)(1).1

 The Magnuson Act 

establishes eight Regional Fishery Management Councils that are each responsible for preparing a 

proposed fishery management plan (“FMP”) and related amendments directed at the conservation

and management of the fishery’s resources. 16 U.S.C. § 1852(a),(h). 

Each Council proposes FMPs, FMP amendments, and implementing regulations to the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) for review and approval. Dkt. No. 14 (“FAC”) 

 1 The Court takes judicial notice of sections of the United States Code because the United States 

Code is publicly available and not subject to reasonable dispute. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).

Case 4:15-cv-05572-HSG Document 44 Filed 07/20/16 Page 1 of 11
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

¶¶ 24-25. Upon receipt of a proposal, NMFS reviews the proposal to determine if it is consistent 

with national standards and applicable law, publishes the proposal, and requests public comment. 

16 U.S.C. § 1854(1). After the public comment period, NMFS may approve, disapprove, or 

partially approve a proposed FMP, amendment, or regulation. 16 U.S.C. § 1854(2).

NMFS may approve a limited access privilege program (“LAPP”) to achieve optimum 

yield for any fishery. 16 U.S.C. § 1853(b)(6); 16 U.S.C. § 1853a. LAPPs must promote “fishing 

safety,” “fishery conservation and management,” and “social and economic benefits.” 16 U.S.C. 

§ 1853a. They also must “establish procedures to ensure fair and equitable initial allocations” of 

fish harvests and “ensure that limited access privilege holders do not acquire an excessive share of 

the total limited access privileges in the program.” Id.

B. Factual Background

In this action, Plaintiffs Pacific Choice Seafood Company, Sea Princess, LLC, and Pacific 

Fishing, LLC “challenge decisions of [NMFS] that establish and implement an individual 

transferable quota program (the ‘IFQ Program’) for the Pacific Coast shorebased groundfish 

limited-entry trawl fishery.” FAC ¶¶ 5, 30-32. 

In 2010, NMFS partially approved Amendments 20 and 21 to the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council’s FMP (the “Pacific FMP”) and published the associated implementing 

regulations. Id. ¶ 33. At that time, the IFQ Program established four regulatory components at 

issue in the current action: (1) a 2.7% aggregate limit on the amount of total quota share (“QS”) of 

all non-whiting species fished in the Pacific Fishery that a person or entity may own or “control”; 

(2) a control rule that defines “control” as “the ability through any means whatsoever to control or 

have a controlling influence” over QS; (3) a divestiture rule that required any participant whose 

ownership or control of QS exceeded the 2.7% limit to divest his excess share by November 30, 

2015; and (4) a revocation provision providing that excess QS not divested by the November 30, 

2015, deadline would be automatically revoked by NMFS (together, the “2010 Regulations”). Id.

¶ 5; Dkt. No. 32 (“Opp’n”) at 4-5. On September 2, 2015, NMFS published an additional

proposed rule that set out specific divestiture-related deadlines, created a process for revocation of 

QS, added an option for the abandonment of QS, established that excess QS would be 

Case 4:15-cv-05572-HSG Document 44 Filed 07/20/16 Page 2 of 11
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

proportionally revoked across fish species and permits, and reaffirmed that revoked QS would be 

proportionally distributed among the Pacific Fishery participants. FAC ¶ 34 (citing 80 Fed. Reg. 

53,088 (September 2, 2015) (to be codified at 50 CFR pt. 660)). On November 9, 2015, after the 

required public comment period, NMFS issued the proposed rule as a final rule (the “November 

2015 Rule”). Opp’n at 7; FAC ¶ 34; 80 Fed. Reg. 53,088 (September 2, 2015) (to be codified at 

50 CFR pt. 660); 80 Fed. Reg. 69,138 (November 9, 2015) (codified at 50 CFR pt. 660). The 

November 2015 Rule applied the IFQ Program’s revocation provisions beyond the November 30, 

2015, deadline into the future. FAC ¶ 34 (citing 80 Fed. Reg. 53,088 (September 2, 2015) (to be 

codified at 50 CFR pt. 660)); 80 Fed. Reg. 69,138 (November 9, 2015) (codified at 50 CFR pt. 

660); Opp’n at 7-8. 2

Plaintiffs filed their complaint within 30 days of the November 2015 Rule and articulate 

six claims for relief that can be summarized as follows: Claims one through four allege that 

substantive provisions of the IFQ Program established under the 2010 Regulations violate the 

Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) and the Magnuson Act. Claim five alleges that aspects of 

the 2010 Regulations violate the APA and the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). 

Finally, claim six asserts that the November 2015 Rule violates the APA, NEPA, and the 

Magnuson Act. See id. ¶¶ 43-86.

II. DISCUSSION

Defendants move to dismiss claims one through five as time-barred by the Magnuson 

Act’s 30-day judicial review provision. See MTD at 10-11. Defendants further assert that claim 

six should be dismissed because (1) Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to challenge the November 

2015 Rule and (2) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Id. at 10, 19-25.

A. Rule 12(b)(1) Legal Standard

Rule 12(b)(1) allows a defendant to move for dismissal on grounds that a court lacks 

jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The plaintiff bears the 

 2 The Court takes judicial notice of the 2010 Regulations; 80 Fed. Reg. 53,088 (September 2, 

2015) (to be codified at 50 CFR pt. 660); and the November 2015 Rule because they are publicly 

available and not subject to reasonable dispute. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).

Case 4:15-cv-05572-HSG Document 44 Filed 07/20/16 Page 3 of 11
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

burden of establishing a court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See Assoc. of Am. Medical Colleges v. 

United States, 217 F.3d 770, 778-79 (9th Cir. 2000); Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 

America, 511 U.S. 375, 376-78 (1994). 

“A complaint will be dismissed if, looking at the complaint as a whole, it appears to lack 

federal jurisdiction either ‘facially’ or ‘factually.’” Thornhill Publishing Co., Inc. v. General Tel. 

& Elecs. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979). In resolving a “facial” attack, a court limits its 

inquiry to a plaintiff’s allegations, which are taken as true, and construes the allegations in the 

light most favorable to the plaintiff. Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th 

Cir. 2004); NL Indus. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986).

B. Rule 12(b)(6) Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]” A defendant may move to 

dismiss a complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). “Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only where the 

complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.” 

Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008). To survive a Rule 

12(b)(6) motion, a plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on 

its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 540, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible 

when a plaintiff pleads “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that 

the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

In reviewing the plausibility of a complaint, courts “accept factual allegations in the 

complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” 

Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). Nonetheless, 

Courts do not “accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of 

fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Secs. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 

2008).

C. The 2010 Regulations (Claims One Through Five)

Plaintiffs’ first five claims challenge provisions of the IFQ Program established under the 

Case 4:15-cv-05572-HSG Document 44 Filed 07/20/16 Page 4 of 11
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

2010 Regulations. See FAC ¶¶ 43-74. Defendants contend that claims one through five are timebarred by the Magnuson Act’s statute of limitations because this action was “filed nearly five 

years after the closure of the Magnuson Act’s 30-day review provision.” MTD at 10. Further, 

Defendants assert that the November 2015 Rule “is not an ‘action’ as defined in the Magnuson 

Act.” Id. at 12. Plaintiffs respond that the November 2015 Rule constitutes an “action” taken 

under regulations implementing the 2010 Regulations, and thus, by filing this action within thirty 

days of the November 2015 Rule, Plaintiffs can challenge both the November 2015 Rule and the 

2010 Regulations. Opp’n at 11. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs at this stage.

3

The Magnuson Act states:

(f) Judicial review

(1) Regulations promulgated by the Secretary under this chapter and

actions described in paragraph (2) shall be subject to judicial review 

to the extent authorized by, and in accordance with, chapter 7 of 

Title 5, if a petition for such review is filed within 30 days after the 

date on which the regulations are promulgated or the action is 

published in the Federal Register, as applicable; except that-- (A) section 705 of such Title is not applicable, and

(B) the appropriate court shall only set aside any such regulation or 

action on a ground specified in section 706(2)(A), (B), (C), or (D) of 

such Title.

(2) The actions referred to in paragraph (1) are actions that are taken 

by the Secretary under regulations which implement a fishery 

management plan, including but not limited to actions that establish 

the date of closure of a fishery to commercial or recreational fishing.

16 U.S.C. § 1855(f) (emphasis added). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[t]he text of the amended 

§ 1855(f)(1) provides that a plaintiff may challenge both an action and a regulation under which 

the action is taken so long as the suit is filed within thirty days of the action’s publication in the 

Federal Register.” Oregon Trollers Ass’n v. Gutierrez, 42 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th Cir. 2006). “The 

conjunctive ‘and’ . . . indicates that both regulations and actions are reviewable in a timely filed 

 3 Defendants urge the Court to dismiss claims one through five under Rule 12(b)(1) because the 

Court lacks jurisdiction over claims brought outside the Magnuson Act’s 30-day limitations

period. See MTD at 10-12. Despite their position, Defendants acknowledge that the Supreme 

Court has more recently indicated that limitations statutes might be more appropriately addressed 

under Rule 12(b)(6). Id. at 11 n. 2 (citing Sebelius v. Auburn Reg’l Med. Ctr., 133 S. Ct. 817, 822

(2013)). Because the Court holds that Plaintiffs sufficiently allege a timely challenge to the 2010 

Regulations under either a 12(b)(1) or a 12(b)(6) standard, the Court need not resolve the debate in

this Order.

Case 4:15-cv-05572-HSG Document 44 Filed 07/20/16 Page 5 of 11
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

petition.” Id. (emphasis in original). “The disjunctive ‘or’ . . . indicates that a petition is timely if 

it is filed within thirty days of either promulgation of the regulation or publication of the action.” 

Id. (emphasis in original). In contrast, “plaintiffs may not use challenges to FMP amendments as a 

vehicle for raising objections to provisions of the FMP that were previously implemented.” 

Oceana, Inc. v. Bryson, 940 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1044 (N.D. Cal. 2013).

The Ninth Circuit’s holding in Oregon Trollers and the Eleventh Circuit’s subsequent 

application of Oregon Trollers persuade the Court that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a timely 

challenge to the 2010 Regulations at the pleading stage. In Gulf Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Gutierrez, 

529 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2008), plaintiffs challenged a Gulf of Mexico FMP amendment and 

implementing regulations that required owners and operators of certain vessels in the Gulf of 

Mexico to install and maintain an NMFS-approved Vessel Monitoring System (“VMS”). On 

August 9, 2006, NMFS published a final rule implementing the VMS requirement and establishing 

December 7, 2006, as the effective date of the requirement. Gulf Fishermen, 529 F.3d at 1322. 

On December 6, 2006, NMFS delayed the effective date of the VMS requirement until March 7, 

2007, to provide those affected with additional time to comply with the regulation. Id. Within 30 

days of the December 6, 2006, action delaying the effective date of the VMS requirement,

plaintiffs filed suit challenging the VMS requirement that was implemented on August 9, 2006. 

Id. Making an argument similar to Defendants’ contentions here, NMFS asserted that the 

December 6, 2006, rule was more akin to a separate regulation than an “action” as defined by the 

Magnuson Act. Id. at 1323. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s order granting 

summary judgment in favor of defendants, finding that plaintiffs could challenge both the FMP

amendment and its implementing regulations because “[t]he effective date is an indispensable part 

of the substance of the regulation.” Id. Because the VMS requirement had no legal effect prior to 

its effective date, it was only “logical that delaying that effective date must be considered an 

action taken under the regulation, not a separate regulation.” Id. The Eleventh Circuit reasoned 

that plaintiffs would not have known whether a petition for judicial review was necessary until the 

effective date of the action. Id. at 1324.

Applying the rationale of Oregon Trollers and Gulf Fishermen, the Court holds that 

Case 4:15-cv-05572-HSG Document 44 Filed 07/20/16 Page 6 of 11
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiffs have established a potentially timely challenge to the 2010 Regulations. The November 

2015 Rule finalized NMFS’s “proposed action” to “further implement original QS divestiture 

provisions of the trawl rationalization program: proportional reduction of QS and abandonment.” 

80 Fed. Reg. 53,088 (September 2, 2015) (to be codified at 50 CFR pt. 660); 80 Fed. Reg. 69,138 

(November 9, 2015) (codified at 50 CFR pt. 660). Plaintiffs allege that the November 2015

procedures for proportional reduction of QS and abandonment established “how NMFS would 

revoke shares from a person or entity that is over an individual species control limit across several 

QS permits” and “how NMFS would revoke shares from a person or entity that is over the 

aggregate nonwhiting control limit.” See 80 Fed. Reg. 53,088 (September 2, 2015) (to be codified 

at 50 CFR pt. 660); 80 Fed. Reg. 69,138 (November 9, 2015) (codified at 50 CFR pt. 660). 

Moreover, Plaintiffs assert that the November 2015 Rule continued the revocation and 

abandonment procedures established in 2010 into the future beyond the initial November 30, 

2015, divestiture deadline. See 80 Fed. Reg. 53,088 (September 2, 2015) (to be codified at 50 

CFR pt. 660); 80 Fed. Reg. 69,138 (November 9, 2015) (codified at 50 CFR pt. 660).

In all key respects, these claims parallel those considered by the Eleventh Circuit in Gulf 

Fishermen. The proportional reduction and abandonment procedures are an “indispensable part of 

the substance” of the IFQ program established and implemented under the 2010 Regulations, and 

an adjustment to a regulation’s effective date “must be considered an action taken under the 

regulation, not a separate regulation.” See Gulf Fishermen, 529 F.3d at 1323. Although the 

November 2015 Rule was promulgated more than five years after the 2010 Regulations, at the 

pleading stage, Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that the November 2015 Rule was an action 

“taken . . . under regulations which implement a fishery management plan” because NMFS 

“derive[d] authority” to implement proportional reduction of QS and abandonment from the 2010 

Regulations. See Glacier Fish Co. LLC v. Pritzker, No. C14-40 MJP, 2015 WL 71084, at *4 

(W.D. Wash. Jan. 6, 2015). Accordingly, Plaintiffs have alleged a potentially timely challenge to 

both the 2010 Regulations and the November 2015 Rule.

Defendants maintain that the November 2015 Rule is a “revision” of the 2010 Regulations

rather than an “action” taken under those regulations. MTD at 13. According to Defendants, 

Case 4:15-cv-05572-HSG Document 44 Filed 07/20/16 Page 7 of 11
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

“revisions” are more akin to amendments, which do not permit Plaintiffs to challenge previously 

implemented provisions of the Pacific FMP. See id. at 13 n. 4; Oceana, Inc., 940 F. Supp. 2d at 

1044. The Court is not persuaded. Defendants cite no case law that distinguishes “revisions” of 

prior regulations implementing an FMP from “actions” taken thereunder. Rather, Defendants cite 

three cases from outside this jurisdiction, all of which predate the Ninth Circuit’s decision in 

Oregon Trollers. See MTD at 13 n.4 (citing Connecticut v. Daley, 53 F. Supp. 2d 147 (D. Conn. 

1999), aff’d, 204 F.3d 413 (2nd Cir. 2000); Tex. Shrimp Ass’n v. Daley, 4:00CV20-RH, 2000 WL 

35938412 (N.D. Fl. Apr. 12, 2000), aff’d sub nom., Texas Shrimp Ass’n v. Evans, 273 F.3d 397 

(11th Cir. 2001); and N.C. Fisheries Ass’n v. Evans, 172 F. Supp.2d 792 (E.D.Va. 2001)).

Because the Court cannot dismiss a complaint “unless it appears beyond doubt that the 

plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would establish the timeliness of a claim,” Supermail 

Cargo, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1204, 1207 (9th Cir. 1995), and Plaintiffs have sufficiently 

alleged a potentially timely challenge to the 2010 Regulations, the Court DENIES Defendants’

motion to dismiss claims one through five.

D. The November 2015 Rule (Claim Six)

In their sixth claim, Plaintiffs assert that the November 2015 Rule violates the Magnuson 

Act, the APA, and NEPA. FAC ¶¶ 75-86. NMFS moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ sixth claim for two 

reasons: (1) Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to challenge the November 2015 Rule and (2) 

Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. MTD at 19-25.

i. Article III Standing

First, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ sixth claim fails to adequately allege Article III 

standing because Plaintiffs do not articulate an injury fairly traceable to the November 2015 Rule. 

Id. at 19. The Court disagrees.

The Article III case or controversy requirement is “a fundamental limitation on a federal 

court’s authority to exercise jurisdiction.” Nuclear Info. & Res. Serv. v. Nuclear Regulatory 

Comm’n., 457 F.3d 941, 949 (9th Cir. 2006). Article III standing requires “(1) that plaintiffs had 

suffered an injury in fact that was concrete and particularized, and actual or imminent; (2) that the 

injury is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct; and (3) that the injury was likely to be 

Case 4:15-cv-05572-HSG Document 44 Filed 07/20/16 Page 8 of 11
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

redressed by a favorable court decision.” Levine v. Vilsack, 587 F.3d 986, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2009); 

Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). The party invoking federal jurisdiction 

bears the burden of establishing Article III standing. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. When the plaintiff is 

the object of government action or inaction, “there is ordinarily little question that the action or 

inaction has caused him injury, and that a judgment preventing or requiring the action will redress 

it.” Id. at 561-62. More, “at the pleading stage, general factual allegations of injury resulting from 

the defendant’s conduct may suffice, for on a motion to dismiss we presume that general 

allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim.” Id. at 561.

Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiffs are the object of the November 2015 Rule. 

Instead, Defendants assert that (1) the majority of Plaintiffs’ sixth claim for relief recasts their 

time-barred challenge to the 2010 Regulations and (2) Plaintiffs cannot have not suffered an injury 

fairly traceable to the November 2015 Rule because Plaintiffs “voluntarily divested quota shares 

prior to the November 30, 2015 deadline, meaning that the proportional reduction methodology 

could not apply to [them].” MTD at 19-21.

To the extent that Plaintiffs’ sixth claim for relief repackages their challenge to the 2010 

Regulations, the Court has found above that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a timely claim at 

the motion to dismiss stage. Plaintiffs must comply with the requirements imposed by the 2010 

Regulations, and there thus is little question that the 2010 Regulations have caused Plaintiffs 

injury that can be redressed by a judgment in their favor. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561-62.

Plaintiffs have also adequately alleged Article III standing to the extent that Plaintiffs’ 

sixth claim independently challenges the November 2015 Rule. Plaintiffs are again the object of 

the November 2015 Rule, which extends the divestiture and revocation processes into the future 

beyond the original November 30, 2015, divestiture date. As active participants in the Pacific

Fishery regulated by the Pacific FMP, see FAC ¶¶ 15-17, Plaintiffs have alleged a credible threat 

that they will be required to comply with the divestiture and revocation requirements into the

future. See Hartman v. Summers, 120 F.3d 157, 160 (9th Cir. 1997). Moreover, if the November 

2015 Rule is found to violate the APA, NEPA or the Magnuson Act, Plaintiffs’ injuries likely will

be redressed.

Case 4:15-cv-05572-HSG Document 44 Filed 07/20/16 Page 9 of 11
10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have adequately alleged Article III standing at 

the motion to dismiss stage, and DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss on this basis.

ii. Failure to State a Claim

Next, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs’ sixth claim fails to state a claim upon which relief 

can be granted because it either restates their time-barred claims or challenges decisions not 

subject to judicial review. MTD at 22-25. Again, the Court disagrees.

At the pleading stage, Plaintiffs have articulated a potentially timely challenge to the 2010

Regulations. Thus, to the extent that Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ sixth claim because it 

simply repackages challenges to the 2010 Regulations, Defendants’ motion is denied.

Defendants’ remaining arguments for dismissing Plaintiffs’ sixth claim require the Court to 

make factual inferences, and thus are properly considered at the summary judgment stage, not on a 

motion to dismiss. For example, Defendants contend that if Plaintiffs believed that the November 

2015 Rule required NMFS to perform a supplemental NEPA analysis, “Plaintiffs were required to 

raise this contention during the public comment period . . . and the response to comments in the 

final rule does not indicate that NMFS received any comments pertaining to NEPA.” MTD at 23. 

Similarly, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs cannot challenge NMFS’s failure to consider an auction 

system for revoked QS because “the auction alternative was apparently never even raised to the 

Council during the 2015 rulemaking process.” Id. at 24. At the motion to dismiss stage, the Court 

must take Plaintiffs’ allegations as true and may not engage in the type of fact-finding process that

Defendants’ contentions invite.

Because this action is still in the pleadings stage, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to

dismiss Plaintiffs’ sixth claim. If discovery reveals facts that support Defendants’ assertions that 

Plaintiffs’ sixth claim must fail, the Court will consider that evidence at the summary judgment 

stage.

//

//

//

//

Case 4:15-cv-05572-HSG Document 44 Filed 07/20/16 Page 10 of 11
11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

III. CONCLUSION

For the aforementioned reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss in its 

entirety. The Court sets a case management conference for August 16, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. The 

parties shall file a joint case management statement by August 9, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2016

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-05572-HSG Document 44 Filed 07/20/16 Page 11 of 11