Western Watersheds Project v. Pike et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting (208) Motion to Consolidate Cases in case 4:08-cv-00435-BLW; granting (4) Motion to Consolidate Cases in case 1:12-cv-00205-EJL. It is further Ordered, that WWP v. Pike, Case No. 12-CV-0205-EJL be transferred to this Court and consolidated with the above-entitled case, WWP v. Salazar. It is further Ordered, that WWP v. Salazar be designated as the lead case and that all filings be in that case. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. Associated Cases: 4:08-cv-00435-BLW, 1:12-cv-00205-EJL(caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 4: 08-CV-435-BLW

v.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, an
agency of the United States, and BUREAU
OF LAND MANAGEMENT,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it a motion to consolidate filed by plaintiff WWP. The motion is
fully briefed and at issue. For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant the motion.
ANALYSIS
WWP seeks to consolidate this case (“Salazar”) with WWP v. Pike, Case No.
12-cv-0205-EJL (“Pike”). Both cases involve challenges to the BLM’s grazing decisions on the
Battle Creek allotment, and both involve the same parties. In Salazar, the Court has held that the
BLM’s grazing decisions violated NEPA, FLPMA, and the Fundamentals of Rangeland Health.
See Memorandum Decision (Dkt. No. 171). In Pike, WWP is challenging grazing permits issued
on the same allotment under the Grazing Rider, Public Law 111-88. WWP did not challenge
those Grazing Rider permits in the original complaint in Salazar because they were not issued at
the time Salazar was filed.
Memorandum Decision & Order - 1

WWP now seeks to consolidate the cases, arguing that they both challenge grazing
decisions on the Battle Creek allotment and involve the same parties. The BLM has no objection
to consolidation. Intervenors object, arguing that (1) there is no common question of law or fact
between the two cases, (2) consolidation will delay the proceedings, and (3) WWP is using
consolidation to avoid filing a motion to amend the complaint in Salazar, a motion that would
have been untimely. Rule 42(a) authorizes the consolidation of cases that share “a common
question of law or fact.” The Court has broad discretion to order consolidation, U.S. v. Gray,
876 F.2d 1411, 1415 (9th Cir. 1989), and in exercising that discretion should “weigh[] the saving
of time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay or expenses
that it would cause.” Huene v. U.S., 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984).
The cases clearly share a common question of fact because both challenge BLM grazing
decisions on the Battle Creek allotment, and the same parties are involved in both cases.
Moreover, the Grazing Rider permits at issue in Pike cite to and incorporate the 2008 Final
Grazing Decision held to be unlawful in Salazar. To avoid inconsistency, and promote
efficiency, the same court should handle both cases. Because this Court has already ruled on
issues concerning the Battle Creek allotment and is further along in its proceedings than Pike, it
makes sense to consolidate the cases here.
Any delay due to the addition of the Grazing Rider issues will be minimal. The Court
and parties are now considering how to proceed to the next round of summary judgment
proceedings in Salazar, and the Grazing Rider issues – which appear to be largely questions of
law – could be resolved in the normal course of another round of summary judgment briefing.
Finally, the Court cannot find WWP guilty of using a sharp tactic to avoid limitations on

Memorandum Decision & Order - 2

amendments. The Grazing Rider issue arose well-into the Salazar proceedings because those
permits were issued at that time, not because WWP delayed its challenge. In the interest of
finality and efficiency, the issue needs to be resolved here.
For all these reasons, the Court will grant the motion to consolidate.
ORDER
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motions to consolidate (docket
no. 208 in WWP v Salazar, 4:08-CV-435-BLW and docket no. 4 in WWP v. Pike, Case No.
12-CV-0205-EJL ) are GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that WWP v. Pike, Case No. 12-CV-0205-EJL be
transferred to this Court and consolidated with the above-entitled case, WWP v. Salazar.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that WWP v. Salazar be designated as the lead case and
that all filings be in that case.

DATED: August 14, 2012

Honorable B. Lynn Winmill
Chief U. S. District Judge

Memorandum Decision & Order - 3