Aland v. United States Department of the Interior et al

Filing 54

ORDER granting 39 Motion to Consolidate Cases; denying as moot 50 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 2/28/2018. (APP)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION

FILED
FEB 28 2010
Cieri(

Dist · • U.s c
"'1: net Of M Ourts
/SSOIJ/a

Q·O.nfana
IVtsion

CV 18-16-M-DWM

ROBERT H. ALLAND,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

vs .
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR, et al.,
Defendants.

This case concerns a Final Rule issued by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (the "Service") designating the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
grizzly bear population as a distinct population segment under the Endangered
Species Act ("ESA"), and removing the grizzly from the endangered and
threatened species list. 82 Fed. Reg. 30502 (June 30, 2017). On December 5,
2017, Chief Judge Dana Christensen consolidated five cases challenging the Final
Rule. (See Crow Indian Tribe v. United States, CV 17-89-M-DLC, Doc. 40). On
January 9, 2018, this case, which also challenges the Final Rule, was transferred
from the Northern District of Illinois to the District of Montana. (Doc. 32.)
Before the Court is Defendants' motion to consolidate this case with the

-1-

five consolidated cases currently pending before Judge Christensen. (Doc. 39.)
Plaintiff opposes the motion. (Doc. 49.) Because this case and the five
consolidated cases involve common questions of law and fact stemming from the
same underlying events, consolidation is appropriate.
"If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the

court may ... consolidate the actions." Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2). "The district
court has broad discretion under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same
district." Investors Research Co v. US. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877
F .2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted).
The situation here favors consolidation. All six cases share common
questions of law and fact. As to fact, each case challenges the Final Rule, and will
therefore involve analysis of the same administrative record. As to law, each
asserts the Service failed to comply with the ESA and the Administrative
Procedures Act, and requests substantially similar relief: that the Final Rule be
either vacated and set aside and/or the Service be enjoined from enforcing it.
While this case raises issues not present in the consolidated cases, such as the
claim that the Service violated the ESA's mandatory one-year publication deadline

(see Doc. 49 at 3), the presence of those issues does not override the benefit of
judicial economy and consistent adjudication, and consolidation will not prevent
-2-

Plaintiff from prosecuting his unique claims. Nor will consolidation prejudice
Plaintiff where this case and the consolidated cases occupy similar procedural
postures. Klayman v. Judicial Watch, Inc., 255 F. Supp. 3d 161, 174 (D.D.C.
201 7) ("Consolidation is typically favored when the relevant actions have similar
procedural postures.") (citation omitted).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to consolidate (Doc. 39) is
GRANTED. This case is consolidated for all further proceedings as a member
case under cause number CV 17-89-M- DLC. The Clerk of Court shall file this
Order in the docket for each case. Thereafter, all parties shall file all documents in
the lead case number CV 17-89-M-DLC and spread the particular documents to
the member case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motion to stay (Doc. 50) is
DENIED as MOOT.

L

DATED this ~ day of February, 2018.

olloy, District Judge
District Court

-3-