Coalition for a Sustainable Delta et al v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service et al

Filing 100

ORDER granting 79 Motion to Sever, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 11/17/09. (Coffman, Lisa)

Download PDF
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 · I. INTRODUCTION Plaintif f s , Coalitio n for a Sustainable Delta and Kern Cou n t y Water Ag e n c y , filed a second amended complain t ("SAC") on July 23, 2009, Doc. 75, adva n c i n g six grou p s of claims : Claims 1 - 5 against t h e U.S. Fish & Wildlife Servi c e ("FWS"). These clai m s challenge FWS's December 1 5 , v. UNITED S T A T E S FISH A N D WILDLIFE SERVICE, et al., Defend a n t s . UNITED STATES DISTRI C T CO U R T FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF C A L I F O R N I A COALITIO N FOR A SUST A I N A B L E DELTA, e t al. Plaint i f f s , 1:09-CV- 4 8 0 OWW GSA MEMORANDUM DEC I S I O N AND ORDER GRANTING FEDER A L DEFENDANTS' MO T I O N F O R SEVERENCE (DOC . 79) 2008 Bio l o g i c a l Opin i o n ("2008 BiOp") for Coordin a t e d Operatio n s of the Ce n t r a l Valley Project and Stat e Water Pr o j e c t under the Endangered Sp e c i e s Act ("ESA") and the Admi n i s t r a t i v e Procedure Act ("AP A " ) . SAC ¶¶ 7 5 - 1 2 7 . Thes e cla i m s were consolida t e d with 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 · · · · · claims f r o m related cases challenging the 2008 Bi O p in the D e l t a Smelt C o n s o l i d a t e d Cases, 1:09-cv-00 4 0 7 . Claims 6 - 7 against the U.S. Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency ( " E P A " ) . The s e claims allege that EPA register e d 16 active pesticide ingredients under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide A c t ("FIFRA" ) in violati o n of the ESA. SAC ¶¶ 128-58 . Claims 8 - 1 0 against the Maritime Admi n i s t r a t i o n ("MARAD" ) . These cl a i m s allege ESA violations relating to MARAD's alleged maintenance of Nation a l Defense Reserve Flee t vessels at Suisun Bay and t h e preparat i o n of a man a g e m e n t plan for disposal of nonr e t e n t i o n vessels. SAC ¶¶ 155-76. These claims all e g e ESA Claims 1 1 - 1 3 a g a i n s t FWS. violatio n s relating to FWS's provision of funding to the Cali f o r n i a Depar t m e n t of Fish and Game under the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act. 177-95 Claims 1 4 - 1 6 a g a i n s t the Federal Emergency Manage m e n t Agency ( " F E M A " ) . Th e s e claims allege ESA violati o n s SAC ¶ ¶ relating to FEMA's a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the National Flood In s u r a n c e Prog r a m in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. SAC ¶¶ 196-221. Claims 1 7 - 1 8 a g a i n s t the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 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 ("Corps" ) and FWS. These claims allege ESA and A P A violatio n s by the Co r p s and FWS relating dredging activiti e s at the Po r t of Stockton. SAC ¶¶ 222-40. On Augus t 14, 2009, Federal Defendants moved to s e v e r and dism i s s , without prejudice, Claims 6-7 against EPA , Claims 8 - 1 0 against MARAD, and claims 14-16 against FE M A from the remaining c l a i m s against FWS and the Cor p s pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a) and 21. Plaint i f f s opposed on September 14, 2009, Doc. 87, and Defen d a n t s replied on September 25, 2009, Doc. 91. The Corp s and FWS se p a r a t e l y moved to dismiss Cla i m s 11-13 and 17-1 8 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Doc. 82. 2009. That motio n was set for hearing on Nove m b e r 23, H o w e v e r , on O c t o b e r 27, 2009, the parties stipulat e d to the dismiss a l of Claims 11-13 and 17-18. Doc. 96. FWS and th e Corps also withdrew their m o t i o n to dismiss Claims 11-13 and 17-18, as th o s e claims a r e no longer p a r t of this litigation. See Doc. 9 7 . Th e parties stipulated t o the dismissal of Plaintiffs ' claims against EPA in Count s 6-7 of the SAC relating to 13 of the 16 c h a l l e n g e d pe s t i c i d e registration decision s , as well as part of Plai n t i f f s ' claims relating to on e addition a l pesticide registration decision. See Doc. 96. Plaintif f s ' lawsuit now consists of t h e fol l o w i n g 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 claims: · Claims 1 - 5 challengi n g FWS's 2008 BiOp (SAC ¶¶ 75127). T h e s e claims have been consolidated with related claims in th e Delta Smelt Consolidated Ca s e s , 1:09-cv- 0 0 4 0 7 . · Claims 6 - 7 challengi n g EPA's registration of thre e active p e s t i c i d e ing r e d i e n t s (propanil, SAC ¶148; cypermet h r i n , SAC ¶1 5 2 ; and permethrin based on t h e alleged effects on l i s t e d salmonids only, SAC ¶15 3 ) . These cl a i m s are rel a t e d to another pending lawsu i t , Center f o r Biologica l Diversity v. EPA, 3:0 7 - c v - 0 2 7 9 4 (N.D. Cal. filed May 30, 2007)("CBD") . That case involves a challenge to EPA's registr a t i o n or rer e g i s t r a t i o n of 74 p e s t i c i d e active ingredients, and their al l e g e d effect s on eleven listed species, includin g delta smel t . · Claims 8 - 1 0 against MARAD (SAC ¶¶ 155-76). These claims a r e related t o another pending case, Arc Ecology v. MARAD, 2:07-cv-023 2 0 GEB GGH (E.D. Cal. filed Oc t . 29, 2007) . Arc Ecology is a challenge to MARAD's maintenance and disposal plan for the nonr e t e n t i o n of vessels in Suisun Bay under th e National Environm e n t a l Policy Act ("NEPA"), the Resource Conserva t i o n and Rec o v e r y Act ("RCRA"), Californi a ' s 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 · Hazardou s Waste Cont r o l Law, and the Clean Water Act ("CWA"), but not the ESA. Claims 1 4 - 1 6 a g a i n s t FEMA (SAC ¶¶ 196-221). See Doc. 96. II. STANDARD OF RE V I E W The join d e r of claim s against multiple defendants in a single action is g o v e r n e d by Federal Rule of Ci v i l Procedur e 20(a), whi c h provides that "persons ... may be joined i n one action as defendants if": (A) any right to rel i e f is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arisin g out of the same transact i o n , occurre n c e , or series of transact i o n s or occu r r e n c e s ; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendan t s will aris e in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a ) ( 2 ) ( e m p h a s i s added). The permissive joinder rule "is to be construed liberally in ord e r to promote trial conven i e n c e and to expedite the fin a l determin a t i o n of dis p u t e s , thereby preventing mul t i p l e lawsuits . " Le a g u e to Save Lake Tahoe v. Ta h o e Reg'l The Planning Agency, 558 F.2d 914, 917 (9th Cir. 1997). purpose of Rule 20(a ) is to address the "broadest possible scope of ac t i o n consistent with fairness to the parties; joinder of claims, parties and remedies is strongly encouraged." United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 3 8 3 U.S . 715, 724 (1966). 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 "The fir s t of these, the common question test, is usually easy to sati s f y . " Bridgepoat Music , Inc. v. 1 1 C Music, 2 0 2 F.R . D . 229, 231 (M.D. Tenn. 2001 ) ( c i t i n g 4 James Wm . Moore et a l . , Moore's Feder a l Practice, ¶20. 0 4 (3d ed. 1999)). more for b i d d i n g . "Th e transactional test, however , is It requires that, to be joined, parties must ass e r t rights, or have rights asserted again s t them, that ari s e from rela t e d activities-a transaction or an occurren c e or a seri e s thereof." omitted) . Id. (inte r n a l c i t a t i o n s Because t h i s test "does not lend itsel f to bright l i n e rules, i t generally requires a case b y case analysis . " Id . If the t e s t for perm i s s i v e joinder is not satisfi e d , a court, in its discretio n , may sever the m i s j o i n e d parties, so long as no substantial right will be prejudic e d by the se v e r a n c e . Coughli n v. Rogers, 130 In such a case the F.3d 134 8 , 1350 (9th Cir. 1997). court ca n generally dismiss all but the first nam e d plaintif f without prejudice to the institut i o n of new, separate lawsuits by the dropped plaintiffs "agai n s t some or all o f the presen t defendants based on the cla i m s or claims a t t e m p t e d to be set forth in the present complain t . " Id. 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 III. ANALYSIS. Federal Defendants m o v e to se v e r from the 2008 OCAP BiOp cla i m s (Claims 1-5), the remaining portions of Claims 6 and 7 again s t the EPA's registrati o n of certa i n pesticid e active ing r e d i e n t s , Claims 8-10 against MARA D concerni n g maintenan c e and disposal of vessels at Suisun Bay, and Claims 14-16 challenging FEM A ' s ad m i n i s t r a t i o n of the N a t i o n a l Floo d Insurance Program in the De l t a . Doc. 79. Federal De f e n d a n t s argue (1) that these claims do not a r i s e out of the same transaction or occur r e n c e as the BiOp claims, (2) joinder does not promo t e convenience or effic i e n c y , and ( 3 ) the misjoined claims shoul d be dismisse d without pr e j u d i c e . Id. At the h e a r t of Plai n t i f f s ' argument for jo i n d e r is the undi s p u t e d propo s i t i o n that a "long list of stressor s " affect th e delta smelt. at 189, 203. See 2008 Smel t BiO p Plaint i f f s maintain, therefore, tha t all of the clai m s joined in this suit are "logically rel a t e d " because they "all re l a t e [ ] to the decline of the delta smelt an d harm to it s designated critical habitat , all involve violations o f the [ESA], and share questi o n s of both law and fact in common, and all would result in consulta t i o n with [F W S ] , " if resolved in Plaintif f s ' favor. Doc. 87 at 2 . 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 A. Do All o f the Claims Arise Out of the Same Transact i o n Or Occur r e n c e ? The firs t requirement of permissive joinder is th a t any join e d claims "aris[e ] out of the same transa c t i o n , occurren c e , or serie s of transactions or occurren c e s . " Fed. R. Civ. P. 21(a ) ( 2 ) . The Ninth Circuit defines the term "tr a n s a c t i o n or occurrence" to mean "similar i t y in the fact u a l backgrou n d of a claim." Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 842-43 (9th Cir. 2000)(ci t i n g C o u g h l i n , 130 F.3d at 13 5 0 ) . Claims that "`arise out of a sys t e m a t i c pattern of events' ar i s e f r o m the same transaction or occurrence." Id. Plaintiffs assert t h a t the vari o u s claims against Federal De f e n d a n t s arise ou t of the sam e transaction or occurrence b e c a u s e "the thr u s t of [each ] claim ... is that each of t h e federal agency's act i o n s or approvals has contrib u t e d to the decl i n e of the d e l t a smelt." Doc . 87 a t 2. In Cou g h l i n , for The case l a w provides some guidance. example, 49 plaintif f s alleged that the Immigrati o n and Naturali z a t i o n Servi c e ("INS") unreasonably delay e d plaintif f s ' separate applications and petitions i n violatio n of t h e APA and the U.S. Constitution. at 1349. 130 F.3d The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's conclusi o n that the claims did not satisfy the "s a m e transact i o n " require m e n t : 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 1 The firs t prong, the "same transaction" requirem e n t , refers to similarity in the factual backgrou n d of a clai m . In this case, the basic connecti o n among all the claims is the alleged procedur a l problem o f delay. However, the mere allegati o n of genera l delay is not enough to create a common tran s a c t i o n or occurrence. Each Plaintif f has waited a different length of time, sufferin g a differen t duration of alleged delay. Furtherm o r e , the del a y is disputed in some instance s and varies from case to case. And, most imp o r t a n t l y , th e r e may be numerous reasons for the alleged dela y . Therefore, the existence of a com m o n allegati o n of delay, in and of itself, does not suf f i c e to create a common transact i o n or occur r e n c e . Id. at 1 3 5 0 . In contr a s t , in Bautista, whe r e each member of a large gr o u p of plain t i f f s lost his or her job at the same time due to the same merger, the clai m s arose fro m the same tra n s a c t i o n or occurrence; i.e., the merger that caused j o b s to be lo s t . 216 F.3d at 843. Similarly, in Mosley v . Gen. Motor s Corp., 497 F.2d 1330, 1333 (8th Cir. 197 4 ) , on which Plaintiffs rely, claim s brou g h t b y ten plai n t i f f s alleg i n g they had been injured by a company- w i d e policy designed to discr i m i n a t e against African Americans "ar[o]se out of the same series of transact i o n s or occu r r e n c e s , " a racially discrimi n a t o r y workplac e . Id . at 1333-34. 1 Plainti f f s emphasiz e that Mosely applied a "logi c a l relation s h i p " test t o Rule 20(a) permissive joind e r . Mosely, an Eighth Ci r c u i t case, looked to S u p r e m e Cour t ' s interpre t a t i o n of "t r a n s a c t i o n or occurrence" in the related context of R u l e 13 (counterclaims). Moore v. New York Cot t o n Exchange, 270 U.S . 593, 610 (1926), h e l d that "`Transa c t i o n ' is a word of flexible meaning. It may 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 Federal Defendants' also rely on Golden Sco r p i o Corp. v. Steel Horse Bar & Grill, 5 9 6 F. Supp. 2d 1282, 1285 (D. Ariz . 2009), whi c h held that claims alleging multiple defendan t s infringed upon a trademark were improp e r l y joined u n d e r Rule 20 ( a ) because the circums t a n c e s of e a c h infringe m e n t were di f f e r e n t . Despite the fact th a t the same tra d e m a r k was i n v o l v e d , misjoinder existed b e c a u s e the clai m s of unlawf u l activity against one defen d a n t were "se p a r a t e and d i s t i n c t from the allegedly im p r o p e r acts of any of the other defendants." Id. Similarly, in Movie Sy s t e m s Inc. v . Abel, 9 9 F.R.D. 129 (D.C. Minn. 1983), a distributor of television programs filed 18 similarl y worded com p l a i n t s , each naming approxim a t e l y 100 defe n d a n t s , for a total of almost 1,800 defendants accused of pirating its television programming. The claims w e r e severed because "[t]here is no claim that the alleged pirating ... was done other than independ e n t l y by each of the 1795 def e n d a n t s . " Id. at 130. Plaintif f s attempt t o distinguish Gol d e n Scorpio, Movie Sy s t e m s , and a similar unpublished case, In Re comprehe n d a series of many occurrences, dependin g not so much upo n the immedi a t e n e s s of their connection a s upon their lo g i c a l relati o n s h i p . " Mosley reasoned tha t "[t ] h e analogou s interpreta t i o n of the terms as used in Rule 20 would pe r m i t a l l reasonably related claims for relief by or again s t different parties to be tried in a sin g l e proceedi n g . " Id. at 1333. Plaintiffs poin t to n o analogou s cases that have fou n d any "logical" or "reasona b l e " relatio n s h i p between claims such as those in the SAC. 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 DIRECTV, Inc., 2004 WL 2645971 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2004 ) , on the g r o u n d that t h e s e claims concerned torts o r alleged violations o f statutory rights "such that only concerte d action by Defen d a n t s ... would sa t i s f y the logical relation sta n d a r d . " Id. at 16. In contr a s t , Plaintif f s argue, th e SAC alleges "each Defendant ' s action i s contributi n g to the decline of the delt a smelt and the ecological h e a l t h of the Delta itself." Plaintif f s ' su g g e s t i o n is that claims may meet th e "transac t i o n or occu r r e n c e " requirement merely be c a u s e each, di s t i n c t feder a l action adverse l y imp a c t s t h e de l t a smelt. As in Coughlin, w h e r e a "basic connection " between the claims w a s insufficient, each allegedly unlawful agency acti o n affecting the smelt is lar g e l y distinct from the ot h e r s . Claims 1-5 conce r n FWS ' s evaluati o n of the co o r d i n a t e d operation of the Ce n t r a l Valley P r o j e c t ("CVP " ) and State Water Project (" S W P " ) , one of t h e most comp l e x water storage and delivery systems in the world . Claims 6 - 7 challenge the registration of pesticid e s for use in the Delta region, each of which has co m p l e x chemical interaction s with the environment. The effect of pesti c i d e s used i n the Delta has no relationsh i p to coordina t e d Project operations. 11 It may have a ne g a t i v e 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 effect o n the smelt, but whether this was inadequ a t e l y consider e d in the Bi O p (or in the context of MARA D or FEMA's c h a l l e n g e d de c i s i o n s ) is entirely determin a b l e without examining th e efficacy of the registration. Claims 8 - 1 0 address the storage and disposal of s h i p s within t h e Delta, a type of agency action claimed to result i n discharges of toxic rust, paint, and ot h e r substanc e s . Another case is addressing the lawfu l n e s s of R e s o l u t i o n of the the ship retentions and disposals. Consolid a t e d Delta S m e l t Cases does not depend on the lawfulne s s of EPA's, FEMA's, or MARAD's actions. Rather, it depen d s on whethe r FWS failed to evaluate the effects of such actions on t h e smelt as related to the Pr o j e c t s ' coordina t e d operatio n s , if such evidence exists i n the Smelt Bi O p administr a t i v e record. Claims 1 4 - 1 6 c o n c e r n admi n i s t r a t i o n of the National Flood In s u r a n c e Prog r a m , which implicates land us e and developm e n t issues i n and around the Delta, yet a n o t h e r , entirely different s u b j e c t matter from Proj e c t operatio n s . A l t h o u g h these claims share the "basic connecti o n " that eac h federal action occurs in th e del t a watershe d and causes adverse impacts to the delta smel t in some way, the age n c y actions themselves are di s t i n c t 12 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 from coo r d i n a t e d Pro j e c t operations. 2 Such land use an d developm e n t effects can be considered without dec i d i n g whether the actions can lawfully continue. Plaintif f s suggest a n alternative reason why permissi v e joinder i s appropriate here, arguing that F W S "as the common consu l t i n g agency" has an obligati o n to "address the underly i n g nexus of stressors on the Delta ecosyste m . " I t is undisputed that a wide variety of "stresso r s " affect t h e delta smelt and its critic a l habitat. For the pu r p o s e s of this motion, it is presumed true tha t each of th e challenged government actio n s (i.e., E P A ' s pestici d e approvals, MARAD's mainten a n c e and disposal of vessels at Suisun Bay, and FEMA's administ r a t i o n of th e National Flood Insurance Pr o g r a m in the Delt a ) , operate as stressors to the delta sme l t . Plaintif f s are corre c t that, under the ESA, Feder a l Defendan t s are oblig a t e d to consider the effects of any proposed federal act i o n in light of the environme n t a l baseline , 16 U.S.C. § 1536; 50 C.F.R. § 402.02, a n d th a t any past and current federal actions form part of the 2 Plainti f f s attempt to distinguish Coughlin on the ground t h a t joinder was not permitted there becau s e the general allegations of delay were insufficient. Here, in contrast , the SAC specifi c a l l y allege s how each challeng e d federal a c t i o n contributes to the decl i n e of the smel t . But, spe c i f i c i t y was not the central issue in Coughlin . Rather, t h e focus was on the differing circumst a n c e s underl y i n g each alleged defendant's situatio n . Se e 130 F.3d at 1350. 13 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 environm e n t a l baseli n e , 50 C.F.R. § 402.02 ("The environm e n t a l baseli n e includes the past and pres e n t impacts of all Feder a l , State, or private actions and other hu m a n activiti e s in the action area." ) . FWS must evaluate individual federal action under the ESA in light of the e n v i r o n m e n t a l baseline, which analysis mus t consider all stresso r s impacting the delta smelt. It is also tru e that a bod y of scientific literature po i n t s toward a "new paradigm" in which the Delta should be understo o d and manag e d as an integrated system. Undoubte d l y , in unde r s t a n d i n g and evaluating each individu a l activity, all others must be considere d . Neverthe l e s s , each a c t i v i t y is separate and disti n c t , and plaintif f s poi n t to no statute, regulation, guidance, or other so u r c e of lega l authority that required FWS to do more tha n consider t h e environmental baseline and all then-exi s t i n g conditions that jeopardized t h e del t a sm e l t and adve r s e l y affect e d its critical habitat. FWS, as the consulti n g agency un d e r the ESA, does not "manage " the complain e d - o f activities. The ESA only requires that FWS evaluate the impacts on listed species of the eac h particul a r fed e r a l a c t i o n in light of other , known stressor s . Each activity is a separate tra n s a c t i o n or occurren c e that must be evaluated in light of the others. 14 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 The dist r i c t court's holding in Prese r v e Ou r Island v. U.S. Army Corps o f Eng'rs, 2009 WL 2511953 (W. D . Wash. Aug. 13, 2009), does not require FWS to manage al l stressor s on a parti c u l a r species in a coordinate d manner. Plaintiffs in Preserve Our Island allege d tha t the issu a n c e of a pe r m i t by the Corps for the construc t i o n of a fa c i l i t y on the shore of an isl a n d in Puget So u n d violated NEPA and the ESA. After finding the ESA and NEPA reviews of the project insufficient on numerous grounds, th e district court concluded: Which ra i n d r o p cause d the flood?" With those closing words (and d u e credit to the author), plaintif f s at oral a r g u m e n t expressed the central issue here. No single project or human activity has caused the depletion of the salmon runs, th e near-extin c t i o n of the SR Orca, o r the general degradation of the marine environment of Puget So u n d . Yet eve r y project has the potential to incre m e n t a l l y inc r e a s e the burden upon the species and the Soun d . Human development will always h a v e some imp a c t on the surrounding environm e n t . The Cou r t fully recognizes the desirabi l i t y and eco n o m i c necessity of industri a l progress in order for a community to flourish . However, under the National Environm e n t a l Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act, it is t h e federal agencies' obligati o n to ensure that this progress does not cause ir r e v e r s i b l e h a r m to the environment. Thus, NE P A provides a mandate to the agencies "to cons i d e r every s i g n i f i c a n t aspect of the environm e n t a l impact of a proposed action", and "to info r m the publi c that it has indeed consider e d environme n t a l concerns in its decision m a k i n g proce s s . " Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. N a t u r a l Res. Def. Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 97 ( 1 9 8 3 ) . It is then this Court's role to ensure t h a t the agen c i e s have taken that 15 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 requisit e "hard look " at the environmental conseque n c e s for the proposed project. Metcalf v. Daley , 214 F.3d [ 1 1 3 5 , ] 1141 [(9th Cir. 2000)]. Having revie w e d the record, the Court finds th a t hard look at environmental conseque n c e s lacking . Id. at * 2 0 . This gen e r a l languag e from Preserve Our Isl a n d do e s not esta b l i s h the re v i e w standard Plaintiffs seek . Preserve Our Island did not address t h e iss u e of joind e r , nor does it suggest that the hard look at the age n c y action s u b s u m e s othe r federal actions that impact the species, but are not the subject of the BiOp. Li k e w i s e , Preserve Our Island did not involve m u l t i p l e federal actions or address a n y other issue presented here. Wh a t Preserve Our Island stands for is tha t FWS must take a hard loo k at the coo r d i n a t e d CVP-SWP operat i o n s change s and thei r impact on listed species. The addition a l complain e d of action s may well be within the environm e n t a l baseli n e and subject to close scrut i n y and analysis , but reques t s for relief regarding these other actions are not reas o n a b l y part of the relief sou g h t in the Cons o l i d a t e d Del t a Smelt Cases, to invalidate the BiOp and to cause it to be reissued by FWS. The clai m s against E P A , M A R A D , and FEMA are not part of the s a m e transact i o n or occurrence as the coordinat e d Project operations in the Consolidate d Delt a Smelt Cas e s . 16 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 Each act i o n agency i s separately charged with a d u t y to ensure i t s own actio n s do not jeopardize the delt a sme l t and/or i t s critical habitat. Other than requirin g evaluati o n of impact s of other federal agency act i o n in defining an accurate and comprehensive environmen t a l baseline , the law do e s not require joinder in the same case of all federal actions that oper a t e as stressors upon the smelt to de c i d e if such actions are unla w f u l or should b e abated. B. Do the C l a i m s Involv e the Same Questions of Law o r Fact? "[T]he m e r e fact tha t all Plaintiffs' claims arise under th e same gener a l law does not necessarily establish a common question of law or fact." 1351. Coughli n , 130 F.3d W h e r e claims require significant "individu a l i z e d attentio n , " they do not involve "common questions of law or fact. " Id. Each set of claims in the SAC alleges unrelate d actions by different agencies that have differen t effects: insuranc e , etc. pesticides, vessel storage, f l o o d Alt h o u g h the claims share some f a c t u a l connecti o n in that e a c h federal action is alleged to have contribu t e d to the d e c l i n e of the delta smelt, determin i n g and potentially remedying the lawfulness o f each age n c y action w i l l require review of vastly divergen t informatio n and consequences, which do no have 17 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 common f a c t u a l or le g a l issues. The claims do no t involve common quest i o n s of law or fact. C. Would Se v e r a n c e Prejudice a Substantial Right? Where th e test for p e r m i s s i v e joinder is not satisfie d , a court m a y , in its discretion, sever the misjoine d parties as long as no substantial right would be preju d i c e d by the severance. Coughlin , 130 F.3d at 1350. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 2 1 ; Plaintiffs do not ha v e a right to force the F e d e r a l Defendants to take action against all the alle g e d stressors on the Delta smelt in a single l a w s u i t , give n the resulting complexity, dissimil a r i t i e s , and delay that will attend such litigati o n . P l a i n t i f f s have not esta b l i s h e d that severanc e will preju d i c e any of their substantial rights as each alleged stre s s o r can be examined in the Consolid a t e d Delta S m e l t Cases to determine their separate and combine d effect on the species and i t s habitat, if th e evidence to do so is in the record. Continue d joinder of other agency action claims m a y unduly c o m p l i c a t e an d delay the smelt cases, whic h the parties have sought to expedite. D. Would Jo i n d e r Serve the Purposes of Convenience and/or E f f i c i e n c y ? Maintain i n g all of t h e alleged claims in one laws u i t 18 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 will be unwieldy. T h e docket in an APA or ESA lawsuit challeng i n g a single agency action is always comp l e x , sometime s cons i s t s o f hun d r e d s , if not thousands of entries. Joining fo u r separate, and differ e n t , a g e n c y actions in a single case will make it unduly burd e n s o m e to keep track of rel e v a n t filings, motions, and deadline s . Even if these claims had met the test for permissi v e joinder, keepi n g the cases separ a t e is preferab l e for effec t i v e case management an d administ r a t i v e effic i e n c y . Plaintif f s are incor r e c t that all four clai m s will involve a single adm i n i s t r a t i v e record and/or rel a t e d discover y . As a gen e r a l rule, judicial review of agency action i s limited to the "whole record or those o f it cited by a party." 5 U.S.C. § 706. 3 Each s e p a r a t e agency a c t i o n will h a v e a separate administrative record. Although there may b e some overlap if similar inf o r m a t i o n about th e smelt was before each agency at the tim e of its decision (or non-decision ) , each record wil l incl u d e extensiv e , unique, u n r e l a t e d information about th e 3 Washing t o n Toxics C o a l . v. EPA, 413 F.3d 1 0 2 4 , 1 0 3 4 (9th Cir . 2005), hel d that the APA's "final agenc y action" requirement did not apply to cases brough t under the ESA' s citizen su i t provision because that pro v i s i o n contains its own wai v e r of sovereign immunity. Washingt o n Toxics does no t address the scop e and standard of revie w , which is undisputably governed by the APA. Tribal V i l l a g e of Ak u t a n v. Hodel, 869 F.2d 1185, 1193 (9th Cir . 1988) . 19 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 differen t agency act i o n in question. Moreover, i f discover y is availab l e at all, it is unlikely to be extensiv e , as extra- r e c o r d evidence is disc o u r a g e d in administ r a t i v e revie w cas e s . Southwest Cent e r for Biologic a l Diversity v. United States Forest Serv i c e , 100 F.3d 144 3 , 1450 (9th Cir. 1996). E. Should t h e Misjoined Claims Be Severed and Allowe d to Proceed Separately o r Should they be Dismissed Without Prejudice? Rule 21( a ) pro v i d e s that misjoinder is "not a gro u n d for dism i s s i n g an ac t i o n . " Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. "On motion o r on its own , the court may at any time, on just terms, a d d or drop a party. The court may also s e v e r any claim ag a i n s t a part y . " Id.; see also Direc T V , In c . v. Leto, 46 7 F.3d 842, 845 (3d Cir. 2006) (upon a finding of misjoind e r , a court "has two remedial options: (1 ) misjoine d parties ma y be dropped `on such terms as are just'; o r (2) any claims against misjoined partie s `ma y be sever e d and proce e d e d with separat e l y . " ) . Here, Fe d e r a l Defend a n t s suggest that the appropr i a t e course o f action is dismissal of all claims again s t all Defendan t s , except t h e first one named in the cap t i o n to the Comp l a i n t . 21. This is an accepted practice unde r Rule See Direc T V v. Armellino, 216 F.R.D. 2 4 0 , 24 1 (E.D.N.Y . 2003)(dism i s s i n g without prejudice all claims 20 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 against all but the first named defendant). Fede r a l Defendan t s argue dis m i s s a l without prejudice is appropri a t e here "be c a u s e this case is at the ver y early stages o f litigation and no substanti v e prejudice would result.. . . " Doc. 79 at 10. Here, di s m i s s a l woul d be wasteful of the parties' and judicial resources. The SAC has been filed and s e r v e d , and judi c i a l resourc e s have been invested into re v i e w i n g the clai m s against a l l defendants. It is more re a s o n a b l e to permi t each set o f claims to proceed as a sepa r a t e lawsuit, all of whic h can be managed in a coordin a t e d proceedi n g . T h e cla i m s a g a i n s t FWS regardi n g the OCAP BiOp hav e already be e n consolidated with the othe r del t a smelt ca s e s . The cl a i m s against EPA, MARAD, and FEMA shall be severed and assigned three n e w cas e numb e r s . Because there are li n k a g e s between th e clai m s , the thr e e new case s will be co o r d i n a t e d for case management purposes and a singl e scheduling conference will be held in all t h r e e cases w i t h a view to achieving judic i a l efficien c y and econo m y . Plaintif f s ' re q u e s t to delay decision on severanc e until th e r e is furth e r factual development in the s e cases is DENIE D , as doing so will permit the fili n g of multi p l e administ r a t i v e recor d s under one docket and trigg e r 21 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 related administrati v e burdens. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Federal Defendan t s ' motion t o sever is G R A N T E D . The claims aga i n s t F W S regardin g the OCAP B i O p shall be fully cons o l i d a t e d wi t h the othe r delta smel t cases for all purposes incl u d i n g trial, w h i l e the cla i m s against EPA, MARAD, and F E M A will be sever e d and assig n e d three new, consecut i v e ca s e numbers. The three new cases will be coordinated for case man a g e m e n t purposes, and the captions shall indicate that eac h is coordin a t e d with the others. SO ORDER E D Dated: November 17, 2009 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger Oliver W. W a n g e r United State s Dist r i c t Judge 22

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?