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)

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