Animal Legal Defense Fund et al v. United States Department of Agriculture et al
Filing
36
Order by Hon. Samuel Conti granting 19 Motion to Intervene. (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
10
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, et al., ) Case No. 12-4407-SC
)
Plaintiffs,
) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
) INTERVENE
v.
)
)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
)
AGRICULTURE, et al.,
)
)
Defendants,
)
)
and
)
)
MARINE EXHIBITION CORPORATION
)
d/b/a MIAMI SEAQUARIUM,
)
)
Defendant-Intervenor.
)
)
On August 22, 2012, Plaintiffs Animal Legal Defense Fund, Orca
20
Network, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc., Howard
21
Garrett, Shelby Proie, Patricia Sykes, and Karen Munro
22
("Plaintiffs") filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive
23
relief against Defendants United States Department of Agriculture
24
("USDA"), Tom Vilsack, in his official capacity as Secretary of the
25
USDA, and Elizabeth Goldentyer, in her official capacity as Eastern
26
Regional Director of the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection
27
Service (collectively, "Federal Defendants").
28
complaint challenges the living conditions of an orca whale named
Plaintiffs'
1
Lolita that for forty years has been held at the Miami Seaquarium
2
("Seaquarium").
3
April 12, 2012 decision to renew the Seaquarium's license to hold
4
Lolita violated provisions of the Animal Welfare Act ("AWA"), 7
5
U.S.C. §§ 2131 et seq., and the Administrative Procedure Act
6
("APA"),
7
Plaintiffs assert that the Federal Defendants'
5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C).
Now pending before the Court is the Federal Defendants' motion
8
to dismiss or transfer this case.
9
position is that this case should be heard in either
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
ECF No. 16.
Federal Defendants'
the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia (the District where the agency and the
Secretary of Agriculture reside), or the
Eastern
District
of
North
Carolina
(the
District where the Eastern Regional Office of
the USDA is located and where the challenged
license extension decision was made), or the
Southern District of Florida (the District in
which [Seaquarium] and [Lolita] are located).
11
12
13
14
15
Id. at 2.
16
ECF No. 18.
17
as the Seaquarium, has filed, on a proposed basis, a brief joining
18
in and in support of the Federal Defendants' motion.
19
("Seaquarium Reply").
20
Plaintiffs argue that venue before this Court is proper.
The Marine Exhibition Corporation, which does business
ECF No. 23
Seaquarium was not named in Plaintiffs' complaint and moves to
21
intervene.
22
Defendants take no position on it.
23
Seaquarium seeks intervention as of right pursuant to Federal Rule
24
of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) or, in the alternative, permissive
25
intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(1).
26
ECF No. 19.
Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion and
Id. at 2; ECF No. 31-1 ¶ 4.
The Court concludes that intervention as of right is warranted
27
and therefore considers Seaquarium's motion under only that
28
standard.
Rule 24(a)(2) motions are subject to a four-factor test:
2
(1) The motion must be timely; (2) the
applicant
must
claim
a
"significantly
protectable" interest relating to the property
or transaction which is the subject of the
action; (3) the applicant must be so situated
that the disposition of the action may as a
practical matter impair or impede[] its ability
to
protect
that
interest;
and
(4)
the
applicant's
interest
must
be
inadequately
represented by the parties to the action.
1
2
3
4
5
(N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2012) (citing Wilderness Soc. v. U.S. Forest
8
Serv., 630 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc)).
9
this standard, the Court must be "guided primarily by practical and
10
United States District Court
Sutton v. Apple Computers iTunes, C 11-03911 LB, 2012 WL 691743
7
For the Northern District of California
6
equitable considerations" and construe Rule 24 "broadly in favor of
11
proposed intervenors."
12
288 F.3d 391, 397 (9th Cir. 2002).
13
In applying
United States v. City of Los Angeles, Cal.,
As to the first factor, Seaquarium's motion is timely because
14
this case is in the earliest stages of litigation; no substantive
15
motions other than the motion on venue have yet been filed.
16
Second, Seaquarium has a significantly protectable interest in its
17
license to house Lolita.
18
a practical matter, impair or impede Seaquarium's ability to
19
protect its interest in its license because, if Plaintiffs prevail
20
in this action, the federal government may be obliged to rescind
21
that license.
22
license to be rescinded without Seaquarium having been given the
23
opportunity to defend it.
24
in this litigation is different enough from Seaquarium's that their
25
presence is not, by itself, enough to safeguard Seaquarium's
26
interest.
27
represent the public interest, while Seaquarium represents its own,
28
narrower business interest in exhibiting exotic wildlife.
Third, disposition of this action may, as
It would be inequitable to allow Seaquarium's
Fourth, the Federal Defendants' interest
As Seaquarium succinctly puts it, the Federal Defendants
3
E.g.,
1
Kleissler v. U.S. Forest Serv., 157 F.3d 964, 973-74 (3d Cir.
2
1998).
3
4
5
6
7
Accordingly, the motion to intervene of Marine Exhibition
Corporation d/b/a Miami Seaquarium is GRANTED.
Granting that motion makes a number of other administrative
matters ripe for determination:
•
The Court deems Seaquarium's proposed answer to Plaintiffs'
8
complaint, ECF No. 21, FILED as of November 16, 2012, and
9
the Seaquarium Reply FILED as of November 20, 2012.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
•
Seaquarium's administrative motion requesting that the
11
Court consider the Seaquarium Reply, ECF No. 31, is
12
GRANTED.
13
•
Because this Order decides Seaquarium's motion to
14
intervene, its motion for an order shortening time to have
15
that motion heard, ECF No. 22, is DENIED AS MOOT.
16
•
Plaintiffs' administrative motion for leave to file a
17
response to the Seaquarium Reply, ECF No. 34, is GRANTED.
18
The Court deems Plaintiffs' proposed response, ECF No. 35,
19
FILED as of November 29, 2012.
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
24
Dated: December 3, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25
26
27
28
4
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?