Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04736/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04736-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 16:1538 Endangered Species 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 1

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 04-4736 JF

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 10/4/05**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 04-4736 JF

ORDER1 ON PENDING MOTIONS

[Docket No. 37, 58, 59, 74, 90]

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity and California Native Plant Society (“CNPS”)

filed a complaint on November 9, 2004, alleging two claims against Defendants Bureau of Land

Management (“BLM”) and Mike Pool, State Director of the Bureau of Land Management for

California. These claims are (1) that Defendants are violating the Endangered Species Act

(“ESA”) by failing to reinitiate consultation, and (2) that Defendants are violating the ESA

because their management of the Clear Creek Management Area (“CCMA”) jeopardizes the San

Case 5:04-cv-04736-JF Document 100 Filed 10/04/05 Page 1 of 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

2

Case No. C 04-4736 JF

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS

(JFLC1)

Benito evening-primrose (“evening-primrose”). Plaintiffs allege that excessive off-highway

vehicle (“OHV”) use jeopardizes the continued existence of the evening-primrose. 

On March 28, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. On April 29, 2005,

Defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. On July 15, 2005, the Court issued an

order deferring ruling on the motions for summary judgment until after the United States Fish

and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) issued an anticipated Biological Opinion. On September 2, 2005,

FWS issued a Biological Opinion (“2005 BO”) evaluating the effect of BLM’s management of

CCMA on the evening-primrose. Plaintiffs and Defendants subsequently have filed

supplemental briefs discussing the impact of the new 2005 BO on the pending motions for

summary judgment. 

Plaintiffs submitted several declarations with their original moving papers, including the

declarations of Brian LeNeve (“LeNeve”) and Emily Roberson (“Roberson”). On April 29,

2005, Defendants filed a motion to strike the LeNeve and Roberson declarations. On May 25,

2005, Plaintiffs filed opposition to this motion. LeNeve filed a supplemental declaration on May

25, 2005, following the conclusion of the 2005 “high season” at the CCMA. On June 8, 2005,

Defendants filed a motion to strike LeNeve’s supplemental declaration. Plaintiffs have not filed

opposition to the second motion to strike.

On September 16, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental

complaint. The proposed pleading asserts an additional claim against FWS, alleging that the

2005 BO is arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the

2005 BO does not comply with the requirements of the ESA and an injunction requiring FWS to

issue a new Biological Opinion. Defendants filed a response conceding that there are no legal

barriers to granting the instant motion, and stating that they “do not take a position on the

propriety of allowing Plaintiffs to file a supplemental complaint.” 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Motions to Strike Declarations of LeNeve and Roberson

LeNeve is a member of the Monterey Bay Chapter of the CNPS and as of the date of the

Case 5:04-cv-04736-JF Document 100 Filed 10/04/05 Page 2 of 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

3

Case No. C 04-4736 JF

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS

(JFLC1)

declaration was vice president of that organization. He declares that he has “been visiting the

CCMA for 12 years as an amateur botanist.” He has been part of a team responsible for

identifying potential evening-primrose sites, and he was a member of the CCMA Technical

Review Team from February 2002 to November 2003. His declaration includes eye-witness

accounts of the use of OHVs in and the condition of the CCMA, accounts of his communications

with BLM, opinions and conclusions about the adequacy of BLM’s management of the CCMA,

and photographs showing the impact of OHVs on the CCMA. LeNeve’s supplemental

declaration, filed after the conclusion of the 2005 “high season” at the CCMA, includes eyewitness testimony as to the condition of the CCMA, accounts of OHV trespass and cut fences,

conditions of evening-primrose sites, opinions about BLM’s monitoring compliance, and

additional photographs of the impact of OHVs on the CCMA.

Roberson is a member and employee of the Center for Biological Diversity. She was the

Senior Policy Analyst for the CNPS for eleven years. Her declaration includes eye-witness

accounts of the use of OHVs in and the condition of the CCMA, scientific descriptions of the

condition of the evening-primrose’s habitat in the CCMA, opinions and conclusions about the

adequacy of BLM’s management of the CCMA, and photographs showing the impact of OHVs

on the CCMA.

Defendants argue that because judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA) is restricted to the administrative record, Plaintiffs should not be permitted to introduce

extrinsic evidence. Plaintiffs respond that in cases of agency inaction, review is not limited to

the agency record. The Court is of the opinion that, given the current posture of the case, the

APA does not restrict the scope of admissible evidence. 

In Washington Toxics Coalition v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Ninth Circuit

held that the APA does not govern claims brought under the citizen suit provision of the

Endangered Species Act. 413 F.3d 1024, 1034 (9th Cir. 2005). Intervenors in Washington

Toxics argued in district court that “the proceeding contravened APA standards because the

district court conducted its review outside an administrative record.” Id. at 1030. The district

court held that the APA does not apply, and the Ninth Circuit upheld that decision: 

Case 5:04-cv-04736-JF Document 100 Filed 10/04/05 Page 3 of 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

4

Case No. C 04-4736 JF

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS

(JFLC1)

The district court correctly held, however, that the ESA citizen suit provision

creates an express, adequate remedy. . . . Because this substantive statute

independently authorizes a private right of action, the APA does not govern the

plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs’suits to compel agencies to comply with the substantive

provisions of the ESA arise under the ESA citizen suit provision, and not the APA.

Id. at 1034. Pursuant to this authority, the LeNeve and Roberson declarations are admissible. 

Accordingly, the Court will deny Defendants’ motions to strike.

Defendants have requested that if the Court denies the motions to strike, they be offered

an opportunity to conduct discovery, file opposing expert declarations, and file a supplemental

brief addressing the arguments that rely on these declarations. At the hearing on October 3,

2005, Defendants indicated that they intend to file only counter-declarations and a supplemental

brief.

B. Cross-motions for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ First Claim

Plaintiffs’ first claim is that Defendants must reinitiate consultation with FWS because

Defendants have failed to implement mitigation measures identified in the 1997 BO, that effects

of the current management of the CCMA that were not considered in the 1997 BO are adversely

affecting the evening-primrose, and that BLM’s management has been modified such that it is

inconsistent with the 1997 BO and 1998 Record of Decision (ROD). Since the complaint and

cross-motions for summary judgment were filed, BLM has reinitiated consultation with FWS. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service issued a new Biological Opinion on September 2, 2005. In light

of these developments, and in the absence of an actual case or controversy, the Court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction.

Although Defendants have not moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ first claim for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction, the Court may dismiss on this ground sua sponte. See, e.g., Harmon v.

Superior Court, 307 F.2d 796, 797 (9th Cir., 1962) (“The District Court always has power to

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. It can do so at any time that such lack appears, and on its own

motion.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h). Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs’ first claim for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

C. Cross-motions for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Second Claim

Plaintiffs’ second claim is that BLM is violating § 7(a)(2) of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. §

Case 5:04-cv-04736-JF Document 100 Filed 10/04/05 Page 4 of 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

5

Case No. C 04-4736 JF

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS

(JFLC1)

1536(a)(2), by failing “to ensure that its management of the CCMA is not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence” of the evening-primrose. They claim that BLM has placed the eveningprimrose in jeopardy by failing to implement its own proposed protective measures. Plaintiffs

allege that these proposed protective measures were the basis for FWS’s finding of “no jeopardy”

for the evening-primrose.

Much of Plaintiffs’ evidence that BLM has failed to implement the proposed protective

measures is found in the declarations of LeNeve and Roberson. As discussed above, Defendants

have not yet responded substantively to these declarations. The second claim thus is not yet ripe

for determination. 

D. Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d), a party may file a supplemental

pleading. “Upon a motion of a party the court may, upon reasonable notice and upon such terms

as are just, permit the party to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth transactions or

occurrences or events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be

supplemented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). District courts have broad discretion in deciding whether

to permit supplemental pleadings. Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 473 (9th Cir., 1988). A party

may bring “new claims in a supplemental complaint to promote the economical and speedy

disposition of the controversy.” Id. Additional defendants may be introduced through

supplemental complaints. Griffin v. County School Bd. of Prince Edward County, 377 U.S. 218,

227 (1964) (“Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure plainly permits supplemental

amendments to cover events happening after suit, and it follows, of course, that persons

participating in these new events may be added if necessary.”).

 Plaintiffs assert that the Court should grant their motion to file a supplemental complaint

because the September 2, 2005 Biological Opinion was issued after the filing of their original

complaint. They suggest that the addition of their proposed new claim is appropriate because

they “believe that BLM intends to rely on the new Biological Opinion to argue that it has met its

obligations under Section 7(a)(2) of the federal Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2),

which is at issue in the pending cross-motions.”

Case 5:04-cv-04736-JF Document 100 Filed 10/04/05 Page 5 of 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

6

Case No. C 04-4736 JF

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS

(JFLC1)

Although Defendants do not take a position on Plaintiffs instant motion, they do respond

to the substance of the Plaintiffs’ proposed additional claim. First, Defendants argue that

Plaintiffs are incorrect in their assumption that Defendants will rely on the new Biological

Opinion. Defendants suggest instead that BLM will not rely on the new Biological Opinion until

it completes the regulatory process, signs a Record of Decision, and subsequently implements the

proposed action reviewed in the new Biological Opinion. Thus, Defendants do not respond

directly to the prediction by Plaintiffs that “BLM intends to rely on the new Biological Opinion

to argue that it has met its obligations under Section 7(a)(2) of the federal Endangered Species

Act” (emphasis added). However, while BLM’s actual management of CCMA may not be 

immediately affected by the new Biological Opinion, Defendants have relied in both their

supplemental brief and their response to Plaintiffs’ supplemental brief on the new Biological

Opinion to support their position that they are not violating the ESA. For example, in their

response to Plaintiffs’ supplemental brief, Defendants argue that they “have shown that

irreparable harm is not likely to occur pending BLM’s issuance of ROD with concrete evidence,

i.e. the 2005 BO. In the 2005 BO, FWS found that, in light of the current status of eveningprimrose and in light of BLM’s current management of CCMA, BLM’s future management, as

proposed for the next 15 years, is not likely to jeopardize evening-primrose.” 

Second, Defendants point out that this Court presently lacks jurisdiction to review

Plaintiffs’ proposed additional claim because Plaintiffs have not met the sixty-day notice

requirement of the citizen suit provision of the ESA. 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(2)(A) (“No action may

be commenced . . . prior to sixty days after written notice of the violation has been given to the

Secretary, and to any alleged violator of any such provision or regulation.”). Plaintiffs have not

offered their view of this potential jurisdictional problem.

Plaintiffs’ proposed additional claim, based on facts arising since the initial complaint

was filed, appears to be related to Plaintiffs’ second claim. Accordingly, the Court will grant

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint, and the proposed pleading is

deemed filed as of the date of this order. This ruling is without prejudice to Defendants’

potential jurisdictional argument.

Case 5:04-cv-04736-JF Document 100 Filed 10/04/05 Page 6 of 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

7

Case No. C 04-4736 JF

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS

(JFLC1)

E. Interim Relief

Defendants have closed portions of the CCMA through October 15, 2005. The Court is

inclined to issue an order to prevent interim harm in the form of a limited injunction requiring

that Defendants implement the protective measures identified by FWS in the 1997 BO for the

period from October 15, 2005 through February, 2006, when a Record of Decision based upon

the 2005 BO is expected to issue. The Court would prefer strongly, however, that the parties

reach agreement as to the precise nature of any interim relief. Accordingly, the Court will defer

issuance of any injunctive order until October 15, 2005. If the parties are unable to reach

agreement among themselves, the Court encourages the parties to meet with Magistrate Judge

Seeborg for the purpose of mediating their differences.

IV. ORDER

Good cause therefore appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motions to

strike the LeNeve and Roberson declarations are DENIED. Defendants may file a substantive

response to the declarations, including their own counter-declarations, on or before October 24,

2005.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ first claim is dismissed as moot. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a supplemental

complaint is GRANTED. Defendants shall file a responsive pleading on or before October 24,

2005.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall defer issuance of any injunctive order

until October 15, 2005, pending discussions among the parties.

DATED: October 4, 2005

/s/ electronic signature authorized 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-04736-JF Document 100 Filed 10/04/05 Page 7 of 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

8

Case No. C 04-4736 JF

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Michael Richard Eitel michael.eitel@usdoj.gov, wanda.davis@usdoj.gov

Michael W. Graf mwgraf@aol.com,

Brian Litmans litmans@worldnet.att.net

Paul Andrew Turcke pat@msbtlaw.com 

Case 5:04-cv-04736-JF Document 100 Filed 10/04/05 Page 8 of 8