Hill et al v. Coggins et al

Filing 86

ORDER that the Plaintiffs shall file their supplemental brief no later than fourteen days after the transcript of the bench trial proceedings becomes available. The Defendants shall file their supplemental brief no later than fourteen days after the Plaintiffs filing. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 9/26/2015. (nv)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 2:13-cv-00047-MR-DLH

PEGGY HILL and AMY WALKER,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
BARRY COGGINS and COLLETTE
)
COGGINS, d/b/a CHEROKEE BEAR )
ZOO, and COGGINS & COGGINS,
)
INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte to order supplemental
briefing following a bench trial on September 17 and 18, 2015.
The Court specifically requests that the parties address the following
issues in their supplemental briefs:
1.

Standing: The parties shall address the issue of whether the

Plaintiffs have presented evidence demonstrating that they have the
requisite standing to bring this action. The parties particularly shall address
the elements of injury in fact and redressability. The evidence as to each
Plaintiff shall be addressed separately.

2.

Whether the Subject Bears Are In Fact “Grizzlies”: The parties

shall address whether the Plaintiffs established by a preponderance of
evidence that the subject bears are grizzly bears and thus an endangered
species subject to the protections of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In
addressing this issue, the Plaintiffs particularly should explain why the
Defendants’ prior “admissions” regarding the subspecies of the bears at
issue (such as statements on a website, signs at the zoo, etc.) should be
considered on this issue but the Defendants’ testimony regarding their
understanding of the bears’ classification (to which the Plaintiffs objected)
should not be so considered.

Also, the parties should address the

appropriate weight to be given Dr. Ramsay’s opinions regarding the
subspecies of the bears at issue when he identified eleven (11) subspecies
of brown bear but ruled out only two (2) of those subspecies.
3.

Interplay between the AWA and the ESA: The parties shall

address whether there exists any regulatory overlap between the ESA and
the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), and if so what the parameters of that overlap
are. This is a question of law, and citations to legal authority (particularly
cases) are strongly encouraged..
4.

“Generally Accepted Animal Husbandry Practices”: The parties

shall address: (1) the issue of which standards are incorporated into the ESA
2

regulation which, when/if applied to captive wildlife, excludes from the
definition of “harass” any “generally accepted . . . [a]nimal husbandry
practices that meet or exceed the minimum standards for facilities and care
under the Animal Welfare Act,” 50 C.F.R. § 17.3, and (2) whether such
standards were met in this case.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiffs shall file their
supplemental brief no later than fourteen (14) days after the transcript of the
bench trial proceedings becomes available. The Defendants shall file their
supplemental brief no later than fourteen (14) days after the Plaintiffs’ filing.
The supplemental briefs should be double spaced, in 14-point font, and shall
not exceed twenty-five (25) pages.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: September 26, 2015

3