Center for Biological Diversity et al v. Environmental Protection Agency et al

Filing 81

ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motions to Intervene 16 40 53 58 (jcslc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/3/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, 8 9 Plaintiff(s), v. ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO INTERVENE [Docket Nos. 16, 40, 53, 58] ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Case No. C 11-293 JCS 12 Defendant(s). ___________________________________/ 13 14 15 On January 20, 2011, plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity and others brought this 16 action against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and others alleging that 17 the EPA has not properly consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service or the Fish and 18 Wildlife Service (hereafter “the Services”) under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act 19 (“ESA”) in authorizing the use in the United States of over 300 chemicals as pesticides (including 20 herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and rodenticides). Plaintiffs allege that the thousands of products 21 that incorporate these chemicals present a substantial, under-evaluated risk to over 200 threatened 22 endangered species. 23 On June 3, 3011, motions to intervene filed by four proposed Intervenor Defendants and 24 other entities whom they represent, 1) Crop Life America, 2) American Farm Bureau Federation, 3) 25 American Chemistry Council and 4) Reckitt Benckiser (the “Motions”) came on for hearing. 26 Plaintiffs oppose the motions with respect to the liability phase of this litigation only; Plaintiffs do 27 not oppose the Motions as they relate to the remedial phase of the litigation. At oral argument, 28 counsel for proposed intervenors and Plaintiffs appeared. The federal Defendants appeared telephonically. 1 2 3 4 5 Having considered the papers submitted, and for the reasons stated at the hearing, the proposed intervenors’ motions are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: 1) The motions to intervene filed by all proposed intervenors are GRANTED with respect to the remedial phase of this case; 2) The motions filed by Crop Life, Reckitt Benckiser and the of the American Chemistry 6 Council (ACC) to the extent that it represents pesticide registrants, are DENIED WITHOUT 7 PREJUDICE with respect to the liability phase of the case; 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 3) The motions to intervene in the liability phase filed by the American Farm Bureau (AFB) and the ACC to the extent that it represents members which are not pesticide registrants are DENIED; 4) The parties and all proposed intervenors shall attend a status conference on August 12, 12 2011 at 1:30 p.m. The parties shall file a status report two weeks before the conference. The report 13 shall include a description of the status of negotiations and a plan for the remainder of the case. 14 15 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 3, 2011 _______________________________ JOSEPH C. SPERO United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?