Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-01266/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-01266-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 05:0701 Maritime Subsidy Board

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVE ELLIS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JACK HOUSENGER et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-01266-MMC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF

Re: Dkt. No. 220

Before the Court is Pollinator Stewardship Council's "Motion for Leave to File 

Amicus Brief," filed April 20, 2016, by which it seeks leave to file, as proposed amicus 

curiae, a brief in support of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of 

liability, as to plaintiffs' first two claims for relief. Having read and considered the motion 

and reviewed the proposed amicus brief, the Court rules as follows.

A district court has "broad discretion" to determine whether to allow amicus curiae 

to participate in a pending action, and "may grant leave to appear as an amicus if the 

information provided is timely and useful." See Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc. 

v. City of York, 162 F.R.D. 34, 36 (M.D. Pa. 1995). In making such determination, it is 

appropriate for the court to consider the content of the proposed amicus brief. See, e.g., 

Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Goldstene, 2010 WL 1949146, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 

11, 2010) (granting in part motion for leave to appear as amicus curiae to support motion 

to dismiss; declining to consider portion of brief that "raised legal arguments beyond 

those advanced by the defendants in their motions to dismiss"); Jupiter Networks v. 

Shipley, 2010 WL 986809, at *9 (N.D. Cal. March 17, 2010) (denying motion for leave to 

file amicus brief in support of opposition to motion to dismiss, where amicus curiae raised 

Case 3:13-cv-01266-MMC Document 224 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 3
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

argument district court found it "need not reach" in deciding motion to dismiss).

In the above-titled case, the First and Second Claims are brought under 7 U.S.C.

§ 136n(a), which provides that, where no hearing has been conducted, "the refusal of the 

[Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")] to cancel or suspend a [pesticide] registration 

. . . [is] judicially reviewable by the district courts." See 7 U.S.C. § 136n(a). As set forth 

in the First and Second Claims, plaintiffs challenge the EPA's denial in part of plaintiffs' 

"Clothianidin Legal Petition" ("Petition"), by which plaintiffs asked the EPA to "suspend 

the registration of clothianidin." (See Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") ¶¶ 82, 83, 

103, 107.) In particular, the first two claims challenge the EPA's alleged failure to 

consider certain information submitted in support of the Petition (see SAC ¶¶ 82-83, 104), 

and its ultimate denial of "the portion of the Petition alleg[ing] an 'imminent hazard'" (see

SAC ¶¶ 83, 110).

The proposed amicus brief, citing fourteen studies and articles, asserts "there is 

extensive scientific evidence that existing agricultural use of clothianidin and 

thiamethoxam poses an 'imminent hazard'" and that "[the] EPA's conclusion to the 

contrary was arbitrary and capricious." (See Proposed Brief at 1:13-16.)

As the parties have previously acknowledged, however, the First and Second 

Claims are "[claims] for review on an administrative record" (see Joint Case Management 

Statement, filed June 27, 2014, at 6:5-7), under which the Court will "review the record to 

ensure that the [EPA]," when it denied the relief plaintiffs sought, "considered the relevant 

factors." See Foundation on Economic Trends v. Thomas, 637 F. Supp. 25, 27-28 (D. 

D.C. 1986) (discussing standard of review for claim brought under § 136n(a)). Pollinator 

Stewardship Council does not contend any of the studies and articles on which it relies 

are included in the administrative record,1nor does it contend circumstances exist to 

warrant the Court's consideration of evidence outside the administrative record.

 

1

Indeed, it would appear that almost all, if not all, of the cited material was 

published after July 17, 2012, the date on which the EPA denied the portion of the 

Petition addressd by the First and Second Claims.

Case 3:13-cv-01266-MMC Document 224 Filed 04/29/16 Page 2 of 3
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

Under such circumstances, the motion for leave is hereby DENIED, without 

prejudice to Pollinator Stewardship Council's seeking leave to file an amicus brief in the 

event plaintiffs prevail on the issue of liability and the Court conducts proceedings as to

the appropriate form of relief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2016

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-01266-MMC Document 224 Filed 04/29/16 Page 3 of 3