Wildearth Guardians et al

Filing 72

ORDER denying (69) Motion to Alter Judgment in case 9:14-cv-00270-DLC; denying (72) Motion to Alter Judgment in case 9:14-cv-00272-DLC. The Court's Order dated 9/7/2016 shall remain in full force and effect. Signed by Chief Judge Dana L. Christensen on 10/19/2016. Associated Cases: 9:14-cv-00270-DLC, 9:14-cv-00272-DLC (DLE)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, a nonprofit organization; CONSERVATION
NORTHWEST, a non-profit organization;
OREGON WILD, a non-profit
organization; CASCADIA WILDLANDS,
a non-profit organization; and
WILDERNESS WORKSHOP,

CV 14–270–M–DLC
(Consolidated with Case No.
14–272–M–DLC)

ORDER

Plaintiffs,
vs.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR, a federal department;
SALLY JEWELL, in her official capacity
as Secretary of the Interior; DANIEL
ASHE, in his official capacity as Director
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, a
federal agency,
Defendants.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Alliance for the Wild Rockies’ (“Alliance”)
motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to amend
the judgment in this matter to provide further injunctive relief. All additional
Plaintiffs support this motion. Alliance requests that specific designations of
Canada lynx (“lynx”) critical habitat outlined in the Fish & Wildlife Service’s
-1-

2009 Rule, which were excluded from the 2014 Rule, should now be included in
the 2014 Rule. Alliance argues that when the Fish & Wildlife Service issued its
lynx critical habitat designation in 2014, “it omitted hundreds of square miles of
areas from the Northern Rockies and the Greater Yellowstone Area that had been
designated as critical habitat in the 2009 Rule.” (Doc. 70 at 2.) After almost two
years of litigation and without making this argument in its Complaint or further
pleadings, Alliance now requests further injunctive relief from the Court.
Defendants counter that Alliance’s Rule 59(e) motion is untimely and
unjustified under both the law and the facts of this case. In summary, the
Defendants contend that Rule 59(e) is not designed to allow parties to raise
arguments or present new evidence for the first time. Carroll v. Nakatani, 342
F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003); Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d
877, 890–91 (9th Cir. 2000).
The Court agrees. Alliance’s request to alter the 2014 Rule to encompass
critical habitat included in the 2009 Rule but excluded from the 2014 Rule is
untimely. Alliance had ample opportunity to present this argument in its
Complaint and during litigation. Further, Alliance has not demonstrated any valid
factual justification for their belated attempt to change their requested relief. All
facts underlying the 2009 Rule and the 2014 Rule were available to Alliance
-2-

from the outset of this lawsuit.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to alter judgment
pursuant to Rule 59(e) (Doc. 69) is DENIED. The Court’s Order dated September
7, 2016, shall remain in full force and effect.
DATED this 19th day of October, 2016.

-3-