National Family Farm Coalition et al v. Vilsack et al

Filing 83

ORDER re Mootness. Signed by Judge James Donato on 1/28/2025. (jdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2025)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
NATIONAL FAMILY FARM
COALITION, et al.,

7
8

Plaintiffs,

9

ORDER RE MOOTNESS

v.

10

TOM VILSACK, et al.,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 21-cv-05695-JD

Defendants.

12
13

On December 2, 2024, the Court entered partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs

14

on their Plant Protection Act (PPA)-based claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),

15

prospectively vacated the challenged rule, and remanded to the agency for further consideration.

16

See generally Dkt. No. 81. The Court directed the parties to confer about plaintiffs’ remaining

17

challenges under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) and the National Environmental

18

Policy Act (NEPA). Id. at 26. The conference was unsuccessful in the sense that the parties could

19

not agree whether those claims were ripe for decision or moot. See Dkt. No. 82. APHIS and the

20

trade association defendant-intervenors say that the vacatur of the challenged rule mooted the

21

remaining claims.1 Id. at 3-5. Plaintiffs disagree. Id. at 5-7.

22

The record demonstrates that the ESA and NEPA claims are now moot. As APHIS aptly

23

suggests, vacating the rule and remanding for further consideration effectively granted plaintiffs’

24

primary claim for relief and left no possibility that additional meaningful relief could be awarded.

25

See id. at 3-4. Plaintiffs bid to keep the ESA and NEPA claims alive by saying that the summary

26

judgment order is not yet “final” and that the Court may revise it in a manner that could render the

27
28

1

As stated in the summary judgment order, the Court refers to the named defendants together as
“the agency” or “APHIS” for clarity. See Dkt. No. 81 at 9 n.2.

1

procedural claims not moot. See id. at 5-7. Although it is certainly true that all the Court’s orders

2

are interlocutory until a judgment is entered, plaintiffs’ point is speculative in the extreme.

3

Neither side has asked for reconsideration of the summary judgment order, and the Court sees no

4

good reason to go back after having conducted a detailed and thorough analysis of the record. It

5

also bears mention that simply entering judgment would close the book on plaintiffs’ theory.
Plaintiffs’ suggestion that the ESA and NEPA claims are reviewable under the APA, see

United States District Court
Northern District of California

6
7

Dkt. No. 82 at 5, is not on point. The possibility that an agency action may be reviewed as a

8

statutory matter does not inform whether, consistent with Article III, such action may be reviewed

9

by a court in a particular case with particular parties at a particular time.

10

It is well established that a claim is moot “when it is impossible for a court to grant any

11

effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.” Native Village of Nuiqsut v. Bureau of Land

12

Mgmt., 9 F.4th 1201, 1208 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, Loc. 1000,

13

567 U.S. 298, 307 (2012)). Plaintiffs did not seek “vacatur of the EIS/No Effect

14

Determination/ROD” in their complaint. Dkt. No. 82 at 7; see Dkt. No. 1 (Compl.) ¶¶ 14, 287-

15

300. It is too late in the day to ask for that now, even where “broad request[s] for such other

16

relief” may be construed “broadly to avoid mootness,” Neighbors of Cuddy Mtn. v. Alexander, 303

17

F.3d at 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 893 F.2d

18

1012, 1015, 1015 n.6 (9th Cir. 1989)), given that plaintiffs won their main claim and received the

19

remedy they principally sought. Because the challenged rule was vacated and remanded, and

20

neither party has presented grounds for disturbing those conclusions, further declaratory relief, see

21

Compl. ¶¶ 287-88, would amount to an advisory opinion about the legality of those procedural

22

steps.

23

In addition, there is no evidence in the record indicating that APHIS may seek to recycle

24

the ESA and NEPA work for the vacated rule, and to simply suggest that is a possibility, as

25

plaintiffs do, is pure speculation. See Headwaters, Inc., 893 F.2d at 1015 (“A case or controversy

26

exists justifying declaratory relief only when ‘the challenged government activity . . . is not

27

contingent . . . and, by its continuing and brooding presence, casts what may well be a substantial

28

adverse effect on the interests of the petition parties.’” (first omission in original) (quotation
2

1

omitted)). If it turns out that APHIS does try to recycle that work in conjunction with a new

2

proposed rule, that would constitute a separate agency determination with its own reasons subject

3

to judicial review. See Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. 785, 813 (2022) (“It is black-letter law that an

4

agency that takes superseding action on remand is entitled to reexamine the problem, recast its

5

rational and reach the same result.” (cleaned up)). Insofar as plaintiffs say the Court can still

6

provide effectual relief by ordering the agency “undertake ESA consultation and further NEPA

7

analysis before promulgating any new Part 340 GE regulations,” Dkt. No. 82 at 7; Compl. ¶ 14,

8

they cite no authority suggesting the Court could order the agency to do so in these circumstances.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Consequently, there is no further litigation to be pursued in the case. Judgement will be
entered pursuant to the summary judgment order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 28, 2025

13
14
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3