Turtle Island Restoration Netw, et al v. United States Department of St

Filing

FILED OPINION (ALEX KOZINSKI, JEROME FARRIS and ROBERT W. GETTLEMAN) AFFIRMED. Judge: AK Authoring, Judge: JF , Judge: RWG . FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [8072879]

Case: 10-17059

02/17/2012

ID: 8072879

DktEntry: 35-1

Page: 1 of 11

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TURTLE ISLAND RESTORATION
NETWORK, a non-profit corporation,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
STATE,
Defendant-Appellee.




No. 10-17059
D.C. No.
4:09-cv-05239-CW
OPINION



Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Claudia A. Wilken, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted
November 17, 2011—Stanford, California
Filed February 17, 2012
Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Jerome Farris,
Circuit Judge, and Robert W. Gettleman, District Judge.*
Opinion by Chief Judge Kozinski

*The Honorable Robert W. Gettleman, Senior United States District
Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

1893

Case: 10-17059

02/17/2012

ID: 8072879

DktEntry: 35-1

TURTLE ISLAND RESTORATION v. U.S. DEP’T OF STATE

Page: 2 of 11

1895

COUNSEL
Holley Horrell, Law Student (argued pursuant to Rule 46-4),
Deborah A. Sivas (supervising attorney), Alicia E. Thesing,
Robb W. Kapla, Justin Goodwin, Environmental Law Clinic,
Mills Legal Clinic of Stanford Law School, Stanford, California, for the appellant.

Case: 10-17059

1896

02/17/2012

ID: 8072879

DktEntry: 35-1

Page: 3 of 11

TURTLE ISLAND RESTORATION v. U.S. DEP’T OF STATE

David C. Shilton (argued), Igancia S. Moreno, Assistant
Attorney General, Mark R. Haag, David B. Glazer, Kevin W.
McArdle, Environmental & Natural Resources Division, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the appellee.

OPINION
KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:
Turtle Island Restoration Network (“TIRN”), a non-profit
environmental organization, appeals from the district court’s
dismissal of its claim on res judicata grounds. TIRN alleges
that the United States Department of State failed to satisfy its
consultation and environmental assessment obligations under
the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C.
§§ 4321 et seq., and the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16
U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq., in conducting annual certifications of
countries exempted from the general ban on shrimp imports.
Section 609(b) of Public Law 101-162 prohibits the importation of shrimp harvested with technology that may adversely
affect sea turtles, except from countries certified to employ a
turtle protection program comparable to that of the United
States. Pub. L. 101-162, § 609(b), 103 Stat. 988, 1038 (1989).
We must decide whether TIRN’s current lawsuit for NEPA
and ESA violations is precluded by its earlier lawsuits challenging the State Department’s regulations implementing the
section 609(b)(2) certification process.
I.

Background
A.

Section 609

One of the primary threats to sea turtles is the use of trawl
nets by commercial shrimp harvesting vessels. The nets frequently entrap sea turtles, causing them to drown. To address
this problem domestically, the National Marine Fisheries Ser-

Case: 10-17059

02/17/2012

ID: 8072879

DktEntry: 35-1

TURTLE ISLAND RESTORATION v. U.S. DEP’T OF STATE

Page: 4 of 11

1897

vice (“NMFS”) requires domestic shrimp trawlers to use a
Turtle Excluder Device (“TED”), a grate that keeps sea turtles
and other large animals out of the nets while letting the
shrimp pass through. See 50 C.F.R. § 223.206-207. Recognizing that this domestic effort alone is inadequate to help the
plight of the migrating sea turtles, Congress enacted section
609 to encourage the international conservation of sea turtles.
Pursuant to section 609(b), importation of commercially harvested shrimp or shrimp products is prohibited unless the
president certifies annually that:
(A) the government of the harvesting nation has provided documentary evidence of the adoption of a
regulatory program governing the incidental taking
of such sea turtles in the course of such harvesting
that is comparable to that of the United States; and
(B) the average rate of that incidental taking by the
vessels of the harvesting nation is comparable to the
average rate of incidental taking of sea turtles by
United States vessels in the course of such harvesting; or
(C) the particular fishing environment of the harvesting nation does not pose a threat of the incidental
taking of such sea turtles in the course of such harvesting.
§ 609(b)(2), 103 Stat. at 1038. The President has delegated his
certification authority to the State Department. 56 Fed. Reg.
357 (Jan. 4, 1991).
In 1991, the State Department promulgated guidelines
implementing section 609(b)(2). See 56 Fed. Reg. 1051 (Jan.
10, 1991) (“1991 Guidelines”). The guidelines were revised
in 1993, 1996, 1998 and 1999. See 58 Fed. Reg. 9015 (Feb.
18, 1993) (“1993 Guidelines”); 61 Fed. Reg. 17,342 (Apr. 19,
1996) (“1996 Guidelines”); 63 Fed. Reg. 46,094 (Aug. 28,

Case: 10-17059

1898

02/17/2012

ID: 8072879

DktEntry: 35-1

Page: 5 of 11

TURTLE ISLAND RESTORATION v. U.S. DEP’T OF STATE

1998) (“1998 Guidelines”); 64 Fed. Reg. 36,946 (July 8,
1999) (“1999 Guidelines”). The Guidelines operationalize
section 609(b)(2) by establishing a general framework and
explaining the types of evidence the State Department will
consider in making its decisions.
B.

Prior Earth Island Litigation

In the early 1990s, Earth Island Institute, of which TIRN
was formerly a part, sued the State Department, alleging that
the implementing guidelines conflicted with section 609(b)(2)
because they impermissibly restricted the geographical scope
of the ban and failed to evaluate actual sea turtle take levels
in certified countries. See Earth Island Inst. v. Christopher,
913 F. Supp. 559, 562 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1995) (“Earth Island
II”). The Court of International Trade (“CIT”) found that the
State Department inappropriately restricted the areas to which
the ban applied, but concluded that the 1993 Guidelines didn’t
contravene section 609(b)(2). Id. at 579-80.
When the State Department amended the guidelines to permit importation of shrimp from uncertified countries on a
shipment-by-shipment basis, Earth Island and TIRN sued
again, claiming that this new provision violated section
609(b)(2). See Earth Island Inst. v. Daley, 48 F. Supp. 2d
1064 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1999); Turtle Island Restoration Network v. Mallett, 110 F. Supp. 2d 1005 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2000).
The CIT sided with TIRN but the Federal Circuit reversed,
concluding that the 1999 Guidelines were a permissible interpretation of the statute. Turtle Island Restoration Network v.
Evans, 284 F.3d 1282, 1286-87 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“Earth
Island III”).
In our case, TIRN alleges that the State Department violates its obligations under NEPA and ESA when conducting
section 609(b)(2) certifications. TIRN claims that the State
Department violated NEPA by failing to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement evalu-

Case: 10-17059

02/17/2012

ID: 8072879

DktEntry: 35-1

TURTLE ISLAND RESTORATION v. U.S. DEP’T OF STATE

Page: 6 of 11

1899

ating the impact of the country certifications, and failed to
provide for public notice and comment. TIRN claims that the
State Department violated ESA by failing to consult with
other agencies to confirm that the certifications would not
jeopardize threatened and endangered species or their habitats.
The government moved for judgment on the pleadings,
asserting that TIRN is barred by res judicata in light of its earlier litigation. The district court granted the motion and dismissed TIRN’s claims. The court held that TIRN’s challenges
to the State Department’s NEPA and ESA compliance in conjunction with the country certification process “arise from the
same transactional nucleus of facts as the previous Earth
Island litigation” and are therefore barred by res judicata.
TIRN timely appeals.
II.

Analysis

[1] Res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, applies
only where there is “(1) an identity of claims, (2) a final judgment on the merits, and (3) privity between parties.” Tahoe
Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency,
322 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). The only disputed issue in this case
is whether there is an “identity of claims.” We consider four
factors in determining an “identity of claims”:
(1) whether rights or interests established in the prior
judgment would be destroyed or impaired by prosecution of the second action; (2) whether substantially
the same evidence is presented in the two actions;
(3) whether the two suits involve infringement of the
same right; and (4) whether the two suits arise out of
the same transactional nucleus of facts.
Constantini v. Trans World Airlines, 681 F.2d 1199, 1201-02
(9th Cir. 1982) (citation omitted). “The last of these criteria
is the most important.” Id. at 1202 (citation omitted).

Case: 10-17059

1900

02/17/2012

ID: 8072879

DktEntry: 35-1

Page: 7 of 11

TURTLE ISLAND RESTORATION v. U.S. DEP’T OF STATE

It’s clear that TIRN’s current suit presents a different legal
claim. In its prior litigation, TIRN claimed that the 1993 and
1999 Guidelines conflicted with the underlying statute, section 609(b)(2). TIRN now challenges the State Department’s
failure to comply with its external obligations under NEPA
and ESA when conducting section 609(b)(2) certifications.
Because these claims involve technically different legal challenges, we focus on the last factor of our test—whether the
separate legal claims arise from the “same transactional
nucleus of facts.”
A.
[2] “Whether two suits arise out of the same transactional
nucleus depends upon whether they are related to the same set
of facts and whether they could conveniently be tried together.” Proshipline Inc. v. Aspen Infrastructures Ltd, 609 F.3d
960, 968 (9th Cir. 2010) (emphasis, citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In most cases, “the inquiry into the
‘same transactional nucleus of facts’ is essentially the same as
whether the claim could have been brought in the first
action.” United States v. Liquidators of European Fed. Credit
Bank, 630 F.3d 1139, 1151 (9th Cir. 2011). A plaintiff need
not bring every possible claim. But where claims arise from
the same factual circumstances, a plaintiff must bring all
related claims together or forfeit the opportunity to bring any
omitted claim in a subsequent proceeding.
[3] TIRN could have conveniently brought claims for
NEPA and ESA violations when it filed its complaint in Earth
Island III in 1998. The State Department began publishing its
annual certifications as early as 1993. See, e.g., 58 Fed. Reg.
28,428 (May 13, 1993). And, as TIRN points out, the State
Department has never complied with the consultation or environmental assessment requirements of NEPA and ESA in
conducting section 609(b)(2) certifications. TIRN would
therefore have known that the State Department failed to
comply with NEPA and ESA in each of the five years preced-

Case: 10-17059

02/17/2012

ID: 8072879

DktEntry: 35-1

TURTLE ISLAND RESTORATION v. U.S. DEP’T OF STATE

Page: 8 of 11

1901

ing Earth Island III. In fact, TIRN concedes that it could have
brought its NEPA and ESA claims during its earlier lawsuit,
but that it “elected” to work with the State Department on the
problem instead. Choosing to resolve a problem through alternative means isn’t a defense to claim preclusion. TIRN’s
excuse demonstrates that it was aware of the NEPA and ESA
issue back in 1998, but decided not to include it in its lawsuit.
[4] TIRN argues that res judicata can’t apply because part
of its challenge involves the 2009 certification decisions,
which TIRN couldn’t have known about or challenged in
Earth Island II or Earth Island III. But TIRN mentions the
2009 certifications only as an “example” of the State Department’s long-standing practice of non-compliance with NEPA
and ESA. Nothing in TIRN’s NEPA and ESA claims are particular to a specific country or year. Rather, TIRN alleges that
the State Department has never followed NEPA and ESA
when conducting country certifications. The 2009 certifications are new only in the sense that they are made annually
and involve different countries. See In re Dual-Deck Video
Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 11 F.3d 1460, 1464 (9th
Cir. 1993) (claim preclusion isn’t defeated where “[d]istinct
conduct is alleged only in the limited sense that every day is
a new day, so doing the same thing today as yesterday is distinct from what was done yesterday”). Following TIRN’s
logic, there would be nothing stopping it from bringing a new
general challenge to the certification process based on next
year’s certification decisions, and every year from now on.
That’s exactly the kind of piecemeal litigation res judicata
aims to prevent.
B.
[5] Not only could TIRN have brought its NEPA and ESA
claims during Earth Island III, but, because the claims arise
from the same transactional nucleus of facts, TIRN had to
bring its claims then. The claims in Earth Island III and here
relate to the same set of facts—the State Department’s pro-

Case: 10-17059

1902

02/17/2012

ID: 8072879

DktEntry: 35-1

Page: 9 of 11

TURTLE ISLAND RESTORATION v. U.S. DEP’T OF STATE

cess for certifying that countries use turtle-safe measures in
commercial shrimp harvesting. Technically, the earlier litigation was about the promulgation of the Guidelines, not the
certification process in practice. But the Guidelines don’t
operate in a vacuum; they establish how the certification process works. TIRN was concerned that the Guidelines didn’t
comply with section 609(b)(2) only because they affect how
certifications are conducted, which may adversely affect sea
turtles. The same is true in our case. TIRN cares about NEPA
and ESA compliance in the certification process only to help
ensure that sea turtles aren’t harmed. If TIRN were concerned
only about the procedural harm from the government’s failure
to consult and conduct environmental assessments, it would
lack standing. See Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S.
488, 496 (2009) (“[D]eprivation of a procedural right without
some concrete interest that is affected by the deprivation—a
procedural right in vacuo—is insufficient to create Article III
standing.”). TIRN does have standing because of its interest
in the preservation of sea turtles and their habitat: The government’s failure to abide by NEPA and ESA obligations may
adversely impact sea turtles. It’s turtles all the way down.
The existence of the same harm isn’t enough to establish
claim preclusion if the harm arises from different facts. We’ve
held that even where there’s the same harm, if the governmental conduct at issue is different, there’s no claim preclusion. See Cent. Delta Water Agency v. United States, 306 F.3d
938, 953 (9th Cir. 2002); Fund for Animals v. Lujan, 962
F.2d 1391, 1399 (9th Cir. 1992). But that doesn’t mean harm
is irrelevant. The existence of the same underlying problem
sheds light on whether the claims arise from the same facts
and whether they could be conveniently tried together.
Citing Lujan, TIRN argues that its NEPA and ESA claims
can’t be precluded because they involve different governmental conduct than was at issue in the prior litigation. In Lujan,
we held that res judicata didn’t apply where the earlier litigation involved “different governmental conduct,” even though

Case: 10-17059

02/17/2012

ID: 8072879

DktEntry: 35-1

TURTLE ISLAND RESTORATION v. U.S. DEP’T OF STATE

Page: 10 of 11

1903

the harm was the same in both cases: bison leaving Yellowstone Park. But in Lujan, the claim raised in the second lawsuit could not have been raised in the first lawsuit because the
governmental action that was the subject of the second suit
had not yet occurred. The Lujan plaintiffs first sued in 1985,
alleging that the government’s failure to prevent bison from
leaving Yellowstone required an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”). Plaintiffs’ second suit challenged the government’s adoption of a bison management plan in 1990 also
without conducting an EIS. The 1990 bison management plan
was not only different conduct—action instead of inaction—
it was also new conduct. Lujan has nothing useful to say in
a case such as ours, where plaintiffs could easily have brought
all the claims during the course of the earlier lawsuit.
[6] Here, we’ve established that TIRN could have brought
its claims in the earlier litigation. Furthermore, the State
Department actions at issue are not nearly as distinct as the
conduct in Lujan. Essentially, TIRN separates the actions as
promulgating the 1993 and 1999 Guidelines on one hand and
making the certification decisions on the other. While these
two actions may be procedurally different, both arise from the
government’s regulation of shrimp imports to encourage foreign turtle-safe shrimp harvesting. Adopting rules for certifying that countries meet the U.S. standards and actually
making the certification decisions aren’t sufficiently different
to defeat res judicata.
III.

Conclusion

[7] Because TIRN’s current challenge to the State Department’s section 609(b)(2) certification process arises from the
same transactional nucleus of facts as its earlier litigation, res
judicata bars its claims. Accordingly, we affirm the district
court.
Although TIRN forfeited its opportunity to challenge the
State Department’s non-compliance with NEPA and ESA

Case: 10-17059

1904

02/17/2012

ID: 8072879

DktEntry: 35-1

Page: 11 of 11

TURTLE ISLAND RESTORATION v. U.S. DEP’T OF STATE

obligations in section 609(b)(2) certifications, our decision
doesn’t preclude judicial review of this issue. Because the
legal question of whether NEPA and ESA apply to section
609(b)(2) has yet to be litigated on the merits, another
plaintiff—not in privity with TIRN—is still free to bring this
challenge.
AFFIRMED.