Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_16-cv-00094/USCOURTS-azd-4_16-cv-00094-0/pdf.json

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

---

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO 

SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL, 

Petitioners, 

v. 

 No. Civ. 15-930 JCH/LF 

SALLY M.R. JEWELL, in her official 

capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department 

of the Interior; the U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF THE INTERIOR; DANIEL M. 

ASHE, in his official capacity as Director of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and the 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, 

Respondents. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

 On December 4, 2015, Defendants Sally M.R. Jewell, the United States Department of 

the Interior, Daniel M. Ashe, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) 

(collectively, “the Federal Defendants”) filed a Motion to Transfer Venue to the District of 

Arizona for Consolidation with Related Cases (ECF No. 16) and requested expedited review. 

The Federal Defendants move to transfer this case to the District of Arizona for consolidation 

with three other cases challenging the same agency action: Center for Biological Diversity v. 

Jewell, 4:15-cv-00019-TUC-JGZ (D. Ariz.) (filed January 16, 2015) (hereinafter “CBD case”); 

Arizona and New Mexico Coalition of Counties for Economic Growth v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 4:15-cv-00179-TUC-FRZ (D. Ariz) (filed February 22, 2015) (hereinafter “Coalition 

case”); and WildEarth Guardians v. Ashe, 4:15-cv-00285-JGZ (D. Ariz) (filed July 2, 2015) 

(hereinafter “WildEarth Guardians case”). All three Arizona cases challenge under the 

Case 4:16-cv-00094-JGZ Document 26 Filed 02/11/16 Page 1 of 12
2 

Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), and the 

Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) the FWS’s January 16, 2015 revision of the federal rule 

governing the agency’s program to reintroduce a nonessential experimental population (“NEP”) 

of Mexican wolves into Arizona and New Mexico in accordance with Section 10(j) of the ESA 

(“the 10(j) Rule”). 

In this case, Petitioner Safari Club International (“Safari Club”) also challenges the 10(j) 

Rule, alleging that the rule revisions violate the ESA and NEPA, “harm the interests of the 

members of the hunting community who rely on the elk, deer and other wildlife upon which the 

Mexican wolves prey; and undermine the long-term conservation and restoration of the Mexican 

wolf population.” Petition ¶¶ 3-4, ECF No. 1. Safari Club asserts that “[i]n assessing the way in 

which the revisions would impact the hunting community and the wildlife populations upon 

which the hunting community rely, the FWS ignored relevant data, failed to collect and evaluate 

relevant data, and relied upon a mitigation strategy that would exacerbate the harm caused by the 

wolves rather than alleviate or reduce it;” and “[t]he FWS refused to incorporate provisions in 

the rule that would provide protections against potential harms to the conservation of the 

Mexican wolves, and in doing so, sacrificed the willingness of the State of New Mexico and the 

hunting community to participate in and agree to the rule changes.” Id. ¶ 2. 

The District Court for the District of Arizona (“Arizona court”) has extended summary 

judgment briefing deadlines in the consolidated Arizona cases in order to allow the Federal 

Defendants time to litigate the motion to transfer this case to Arizona for the purpose of 

consolidation with the Arizona cases. The Court, having considered the motion, briefs, 

pleadings, and applicable law, concludes that the motion to transfer venue should be granted. 

Case 4:16-cv-00094-JGZ Document 26 Filed 02/11/16 Page 2 of 12
3 

I. BACKGROUND 

Once a species is listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA, the Secretary of the 

Interior may authorize the release of any population of such endangered or threatened species 

“outside the current range of such species if the Secretary determines that such release will 

further the conservation of such species.” 16 U.S.C. § 1539(j)(2)(A). Such an introduced 

population that has been so designated is an “experimental population” when the population is 

wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same species. 16 

U.S.C. § 1539(j)(1); 50 C.F.R. § 17.80(a). “The term essential experimental population means an 

experimental population whose loss would be likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the 

survival of the species in the wild.” 50 C.F.R. § 17.80(b). “All other experimental populations 

are to be classified as nonessential.” Id. 

The designation of experimental populations must be by rule promulgated under the 

APA, 5 U.S.C. § 553. 50 C.F.R. § 17.81(a). The rules designating experimental populations are 

referred to as “10(j) rules” and are codified at 50 C.F.R. § 17.84. As relevant here, the FWS 

“shall consult with appropriate State fish and wildlife agencies, local governmental entities, 

affected Federal agencies, and affected private landowners in developing and implementing 

experimental population rules.” Id. § 17.81(d). “Any regulation promulgated pursuant to this 

section shall, to the maximum extent practicable, represent an agreement between the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the affected State and Federal agencies and persons holding any interest in land 

which may be affected by the establishment of an experimental population.” Id. 

A. The 10(j) Rule and Arizona’s Consolidated Cases 

The history of the revised 10(j) Rule at issue here pertaining to the Mexican wolf and the 

litigation history of the three Arizona cases that followed publication of the 10(j) Rule in the 

Case 4:16-cv-00094-JGZ Document 26 Filed 02/11/16 Page 3 of 12
4 

Federal Register are set forth in detail in the Honorable William P. Johnson’s Memorandum 

Opinion and Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue to the District of Arizona for 

Consolidation with Related Case (ECF No. 16-2), filed in the Coalition case, 15cv125 WJ/WPL, 

that originated in the District of New Mexico before transfer to the Arizona court. See Defs.’ 

Mot. to Transfer, Ex. B (Mem. Op. and Order) at 1-6, ECF No. 16-2. The Court hereby adopts 

and incorporates the background set forth in that opinion. See id. 

B. The Safari Club Petition 

On October 16, 2015, Safari Club filed its lawsuit challenging the 10(j) Rule in the 

District of New Mexico. Petition, ECF No. 1. The Petition contains five causes of action for 

violation of the ESA (Counts I-V) and three for violations of NEPA (Counts VI-VIII). 

1. Safari Club’s ESA claims 

In Counts I and II, Safari Club asserts that the Federal Defendants violated their statutory 

obligations under the ESA and APA, as well as their regulatory obligations, by failing to base the 

10(j) Rule revisions for the Mexican wolf NEP on an agreement between the FWS, the New 

Mexico Commission, the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (“NMDGF”), and the 

hunting community. See id. ¶¶ 127-38. In Count II, Petitioner alleges that the Federal Defendants 

violated their regulatory obligations under 50 C.F.R. § 17.81 by adopting revisions for the 

Mexican wolf NEP that resulted in the NM Commission and NMDGF withdrawing completely 

from the wolf recovery program and/or that did not properly assess or mitigate the impact of the 

revisions to the hunting community. Id. ¶¶ 133-38. 

Safari Club contends in Counts III and IV that the Federal Defendants violated their 

statutory obligation under the ESA and APA, and their regulatory obligations, to only authorize 

the release of an experimental population outside its current range when it will further the 

Case 4:16-cv-00094-JGZ Document 26 Filed 02/11/16 Page 4 of 12
5 

conservation of the species, asserting that the withdrawal from the process by the NM 

Commission and NMDGF has harmed the Mexican wolf’s recovery. See id. ¶¶ 139-51. In Count 

IV, Petitioner alleges a violation of the Federal Defendants’ regulatory obligation under 50 

C.F.R. § 17.81(b) by drafting the revisions “to authorize an expanded release of the Mexican 

wolf NEP despite a lack of scientific and commercial data demonstrating that the release would 

further the conservation of the species,” and by adopting the revision without agreement of the 

State of New Mexico wildlife management authorities. See id. ¶¶ 145-151. 

Petitioner alleges in Count V that the Federal Defendants’ failure to include provisions, 

such as those that would protect the NEP from the risk of reclassification to essential, threatened 

or endangered status, violated the requirements in the ESA to adopt regulations that are 

necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species. Id. ¶¶ 152-59. Safari Club also 

asserts that the Federal Defendants’ violated the ESA by failing to adequately mitigate any 

unacceptable impact on wild ungulate populations, forcing the State of New Mexico’s wildlife 

management authorities to withdraw from the recovery effort, causing more harm to the wolf 

than good. See id. 

2. Safari Club’s NEPA claims 

In Count VI, Petitioner asserts that the Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) and 

Record of Decision (“ROD”) that FWS prepared violated NEPA because FWS failed to provide 

adequate mitigation measures and failed to analyze the environmental impacts of the 10(j) Rule 

revision. See id. ¶¶ 160-70. Safari Club complains that the State cannot invoke the mitigation 

strategies until demonstrable harm to wild ungulate populations has already occurred, the 10(j) 

Rule requires a lengthy and detailed process that will allow the wolves to cause additional harm 

before the States have completed all the procedural requirements necessary to seek permission to 

Case 4:16-cv-00094-JGZ Document 26 Filed 02/11/16 Page 5 of 12
6 

remove wolves, and places no time constraints on the Federal Defendants to authorize removal 

of wolves, allowing the wolves to cause more harm. Id. ¶ 164. 

Safari Club alleged in Count VII violations of NEPA and the APA by the Federal 

Defendants when they based the 2014 EIS and ROD on studies assessing the impact of a wolf 

population far lower than the population planned and by failing to accurately analyze the impact 

of the mitigation process to the wild ungulate populations, the State, the hunters, and the hunting 

community. See id. ¶¶ 170-78. 

Finally, Petitioner asserts in Count VIII a violation of NEPA statutory and regulatory 

obligations, including 40 C.F.R. § 1506.2(d), in finalizing the 2014 EIS despite inconsistencies 

with New Mexico State plans and laws designed to conserve wildlife resources and without 

providing a statement describing the extent to which they would reconcile their actions with 

State plans or law. See id. ¶¶ 179-184. 

II. STANDARD 

“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court 

may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been 

brought . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The “interest of justice” analysis is separate from the 

convenience analysis and is concerned with judicial efficiency and the avoidance of conflicts 

between coordinate courts. See Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616, 626-27 (1964) (noting 

that Section 1404(a) “empowers a district court to transfer ‘any civil action' to another district 

court if the transfer is warranted by the convenience of parties and witnesses and promotes the 

interest of justice” and conducting separate interest-of-justice analysis) (internal footnote 

omitted); Research Automation, Inc. v. Schrader-Bridgeport Intern., Inc., 626 F.3d 973, 978 (7th 

Cir. 2010) (“The ‘interest of justice’ is a separate element of the transfer analysis that relates to 

Case 4:16-cv-00094-JGZ Document 26 Filed 02/11/16 Page 6 of 12
7 

the efficient administration of the court system.”); Feller v. Brock, 802 F.2d 722, 729 n.7 (4th 

Cir. 1986) (noting that “interest of justice” analysis under § 1404(a) includes “the avoidance of 

conflict between coordinate courts”). “The interest of justice may be determinative, warranting 

transfer or its denial even where the convenience of the parties and witnesses points toward the 

opposite result.” Research Automation, 626 F.3d at 978. 

A district court enjoys greater discretion to transfer a case under § 1404(a) than to 

dismiss the action based upon forum non conveniens. Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Country Chrysler, 

Inc., 928 F.2d 1509, 1515 (10th Cir. 1991). A court should decide motions to transfer on an 

individualized, case-by-case basis. Id. at 1516. “The party moving to transfer a case pursuant to 

§ 1404(a) bears the burden of establishing that the existing forum is inconvenient.” Id.at 1515. In 

considering a motion to transfer, the court should consider the following discretionary factors: 

the plaintiff's choice of forum; the accessibility of witnesses and other sources of 

proof, including the availability of compulsory process to insure attendance of 

witnesses; the cost of making the necessary proof; questions as to the 

enforceability of a judgment if one is obtained; relative advantages and obstacles 

to a fair trial; difficulties that may arise from congested dockets; the possibility of 

the existence of questions arising in the area of conflict of laws; the advantage of 

having a local court determine questions of local law; and[ ] all other 

considerations of a practical nature that make a trial easy, expeditious and 

economical. 

Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Bartile Roofs, Inc., 618 F.3d 1153, 1167 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting 

Chrysler Credit Corp., 928 F.2d at 1516). “Merely shifting the inconvenience from one side to 

the other, however, obviously is not a permissible justification for a change of venue.” Id.

(quoting Scheidt v. Klein, 956 F.2d 963, 965 (10th Cir. 1992)). Unless the balance of interests 

“is strongly in favor of the movant the plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.” 

Scheidt, 956 F.2d at 965 (quoting William A. Smith Contracting Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 467 

F.2d 662, 664 (10th Cir. 1972)). 

Case 4:16-cv-00094-JGZ Document 26 Filed 02/11/16 Page 7 of 12
8 

III. ANALYSIS 

A. This case might have been brought in the District of Arizona 

In order for the court in the transferee district to be one in which the case may have been 

brought, the transferee court must have subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over 

the parties, and venue must be proper. See Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 344 (1960); 

Chrysler Credit Corp., 928 F.2d at 1515; Packer v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of MidAtlantic States, Inc., 728 F.Supp. 8, 11 & n.2 (D.D.C. 1989). The parties here agree that this case 

may have been brought in the District of Arizona. 

B. The balance of interests weighs strongly in favor of transfer 

The first factor for a court to consider is the plaintiff’s choice of forum. Although the 

plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed, courts should give less deference to the 

plaintiff’s choice of forum when the plaintiff does not reside in the district. Employers Mut. Cas. 

Co., 618 F.3d at 1167-68. Safari Club has two local chapters in New Mexico and has 576 

members who are citizens of New Mexico. See Compl. ¶ 13, ECF No. 1. The subject matter of 

this lawsuit also has a relationship to New Mexico because it involves the Federal Defendants’ 

failure to reach an agreement with the State of New Mexico wildlife management authorities in 

developing the 10(j) Rule revisions, prompting them to withdraw, and the impact the revisions 

will have on New Mexico’s wildlife and hunting community. Despite these connections to the 

forum state, it is undisputed that Safari Club is incorporated in the State of Arizona and is a 

resident there. Accordingly, Safari Club would not be inconvenienced by litigating this case in 

the District of Arizona. Moreover, the District of Arizona is equally adept at considering the 

interests of New Mexico’s hunting community when considering Plaintiff’s legal claims. The 

District Court for the District of Arizona is already considering similar claims and interests of 

Case 4:16-cv-00094-JGZ Document 26 Filed 02/11/16 Page 8 of 12
9 

New Mexico organizations and citizens in the Coalition case. 

Turning to the next factors, the parties agree that most of the discretionary factors are 

neutral here. The Court finds that the factors of accessibility of witnesses and proof; the cost of 

making proof; the enforceability of a judgment; congested dockets; conflict of laws; and a local 

court considering questions of local law do not favor either forum. This case involves questions 

of federal law and should be decided on the administrative record and summary judgment briefs. 

The last factor involves considerations of judicial economy, and this factor weighs 

strongly in favor of the case being heard by the Arizona Court. This case involves substantial 

factual and legal similarities to the three consolidated suits – all four cases involve ESA and 

NEPA claims challenging the revised 10(j) Rule, albeit from different perspectives, and all four 

cases will be resolved by examining the identical administrative record.1

 The Court recognizes 

that Safari Club is a distinct entity from the parties in the Arizona cases2 and that the claims are 

not identical to those currently before the Arizona Court. Unlike here, the Arizona cases do not 

focus on errors committed by the FWS in their dealings with New Mexico state wildlife 

management authorities, on alleged procedural violations in the mitigation strategies available to 

the State of New Mexico, or on the refusal to include an “escape clause” that would require the 

FWS to restore the original 10(j) Rule if any actions cause a reclassification of the NEP to 

essential, threatened, or endangered status. Nevertheless, the cases all involve whether the 

Federal Defendants properly considered the best scientific information with regard to the 

Mexican wolf’s population size, necessary geographic range, and the effects on wild ungulate 

 

1

 Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, the case of WildEarth Guardians v. Sandoval, 1:12-cv-00118-JCH-SCY, is not 

active in this Court and is not sufficiently similar to this case to counter-balance the interests in judicial economy 

that warrant transfer to the court that will be reviewing the same administrative record and considering similar 

claims as the consolidated cases. 

2

 Notably, the plaintiffs in the Coalition case include the New Mexico Trappers Association and New Mexicans who 

engage in the hunting and outfitting business. See Coalition Petition ¶¶ 10, 12, ECF No. 16-4. 

Case 4:16-cv-00094-JGZ Document 26 Filed 02/11/16 Page 9 of 12
10 

and other prey species. 

The following comparison of the Safari Club Petition with the petitions/complaints in the 

consolidated case reveals the similarity of the cases and why justice would best be served by 

transfer so that one well-versed court can consider all the claims: 

 Compare Safari Club Petition ¶ 3, ECF No. 1 (“the rule revisions violate federal 

law; harm the interests of the members of the hunting community who rely on the 

elk, deer and other wildlife upon which the Mexican wolves prey”), with

Coalition Am. Petition ¶ 10, Ex. D, ECF No. 16-4 (“Additionally, members of 

these organizations engage in the hunting and outfitting business. These members 

will also suffer actual and imminent injury from the 2015 10(j) Rule with the 

reduction in elk and other wildlife populations upon which these hunters and 

outfitters depend.”). 

 Compare Safari Club Petition ¶ 129, ECF No. 1 (“Federal Respondents violated 

16 U.S.C. §1539(a) and (j) of the ESA and 5 U.S.C. §706(2) of the APA by 

failing to promulgate regulations for the Mexican wolf NEP that constitute an 

agreement between the FWS, the NM Commission and NMDGF, and the hunting 

community.”), with Coalition Am. Petition ¶ 244-46, Ex. D, ECF No. 16-4 

(asserting that FWS violated the ESA in failing to reach agreement with persons 

holding an interest in land who will be impacted by 10(j) Rule). 

 Compare Safari Club Petition ¶163 (“Federal Respondents incorrectly asserted 

that the Mexican Wolf NEP Rule Revision provided mitigation strategies that 

would alleviate the harm that the expanded and increased Mexican wolf 

populations could impose on wild ungulate populations and on the hunters and 

hunting community that depend upon those ungulates by claiming that ‘the final 

rule provides States the authority to take Mexican wolves in response to 

unacceptable impacts to wild ungulate herds[.]’”), and ¶ 167 (“The 2014 EIS and 

ROD did not assess the harm that would be caused to wild ungulate populations, 

the State, the hunters and the hunting community during the time necessary for 

the State to obtain the required documentation of an unacceptable impact and 

during the time necessary for the State to comply with all of the requirements 

identified in the rule for requesting removal of the offending wolves.”), with

Coalition Am. Petition ¶¶195-201, ECF No. 16-4 (section asserting that the Final 

EIS “fails to adequately analyze the effects of its 10(j) Rule upon big game (elk) 

hunting activities”). 

 Compare Safari Club Petition ¶¶ 140-41 (“These revisions constitute the release 

of the experimental population outside of its current range without furthering the 

conservation of the species. . . . As a result of Federal Respondent’s actions, one 

of the two key states responsible for Mexican wolf recovery is no longer 

participating in that recovery effort and a major stakeholder group whose 

Case 4:16-cv-00094-JGZ Document 26 Filed 02/11/16 Page 10 of 12
11 

participation, support and contribution is essential to recovery has been 

inadequately protected from the impact of the rule revisions.”), with Center for 

Biological Diversity Compl. ¶¶ 109-116, ECF No. 16-3 (asserting various ways in 

which FWS failed to provide for species recovery), and Coalition Am. Petition 

¶ 234, ECF No. 16-4 (“The USFWS has not shown that its 2015 10(j) Rule is 

‘likely’ to achieve success in both survival and establishment of its experimental 

population...”). 

 Compare Safari Club Petition ¶ 146 (“Federal Respondents violated 50 C.F.R. 

§17.81(b) by drafting the Mexican Wolf NEP Rule Revisions to authorize an 

expanded release of the Mexican wolf NEP despite a lack of scientific and 

commercial data demonstrating that the release would further the conservation of 

the species.”), with Center for Biological Diversity Compl. ¶ 119 (faulting FWS 

for failing to use best available scientific information in setting northern boundary 

for wolf), and Coalition Am. Petition ¶¶ 204-208 (asserting that FWS’s decision 

to release Mexican wolves into unsuitable habitat is arbitrary and capricious), and

¶ 234 (faulting FWS for its failure and neglect to undertake proper analyses and 

studies to properly inform itself). 

The Court finds Judge Johnson’s interest-of-justice analysis persuasive in terms of the 

judicial savings and the depth of understanding that will result in having one court consider all 

the competing claims of the parties: 

[B]oth this case and the District of Arizona case concern FWS’s fulfillment of its 

obligations under NEPA and the ESA in developing the revised 10(j) Rule for the 

Mexican wolf recovery program; the claims in both cases implicate the same 

rulemaking and environmental process; and the resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims in 

both cases will be based on judicial review of the same extensive Administrative 

Record... 

[T]he divergent interests of both sets of Plaintiffs come into play by 

raising the real possibility of conflicting opinions and rulings on the validity of 

the revised 10(j) Rule. Plaintiffs in the New Mexico case represent the livestock 

industry and seek to invalidate the revised 10(j) Rule, including its expansion of 

Mexican wolf range and population goals. Plaintiffs representing environmental 

interests in the Arizona case also seek to invalidate the revised 10(j) Rule based 

on similar arguments, but want to see FWS do even more in expanding Mexican 

wolf numbers and range. The incompatibility between these positions means that 

FWS may be subject to conflicting court orders or injunctions concerning whether 

the Mexican wolf reintroduction program is too expansive or not expansive 

enough. 

The Court finds that separate proceedings in these cases would not only be 

an unwise use of judicial resources, but would force the federal Defendants to 

Case 4:16-cv-00094-JGZ Document 26 Filed 02/11/16 Page 11 of 12
12 

expend resources to defend the same 10(j) Rule in two different proceedings. 

Defs.’ Mot. to Transfer, Ex. B (Mem. Op. and Order) at 11-12, ECF No. 16-2. 

This Court also concludes that the Federal Defendants have met their burden of showing 

that trying this substantially similar case in New Mexico is inconvenient. Significantly, Safari 

Club is a resident of Arizona and would not be inconvenienced by the transfer. The District of 

Arizona is well-suited to consider all the New Mexico interests implicated in this case, and there 

are considerable cost savings in having one court considering the voluminous administrative 

record. Finally, Petitioner has not shown that it will be prejudiced by a transfer. The District of 

Arizona has stayed briefing in their case to allow this Court time to resolve the motion to 

transfer. Safari Club has had a copy of the Administrative Record since December 22, 2015. See

Defs.’ Reply 12 n.8, ECF No. 19. There is no reason to believe that the District Court of Arizona 

would refuse to give Safari Club enough time to adequately prepare its case. Having considered 

all the relevant factors under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the Court finds that this case could have been 

brought in the District of Arizona and that the convenience to the parties and the interests of 

justice weigh in favor of transfer. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Federal Defendants’ Motion to Transfer 

Venue to the District of Arizona for Consolidation with Related Cases (ECF No. 16) is 

GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to transfer this case to the United States District 

Court for the District of Arizona. 

_______________________________________ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 4:16-cv-00094-JGZ Document 26 Filed 02/11/16 Page 12 of 12