Fairweather Fish, Inc. et al v. Pritzker et al

Filing 49

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H. Settle replacing Dkt. 36. Case reopened.(TG)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 6 7 FAIRWEATHER FISH, INC., and 8 CAPTAIN RAY WELSH, Plaintiffs, 9 10 v. 11 PENNY PRITZKER, in her official capacity as Secretary of Commerce, et al. 12 Defendants. 13 CASE NO. C14-5685 BHS ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PART AND DENYING IT IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PART AND DENYING IT IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Fairweather Fish, Inc., and 16 Captain Ray Welsh’s (“Plaintiffs”) motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 25) and 17 Defendants National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”), National 18 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”), 19 Penny Pritzker, Eileen Sobeck, and Kathryn D. Sullivan’s (collectively “Defendants”) 20 cross motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 29). The Court has considered the pleadings 21 filed in support of and in opposition to the motions and the remainder of the file and 22 hereby rules as follows: ORDER - 1 1 2 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On August 27, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants challenging a 3 final rule promulgated by Defendants on July 28, 2014. Dkt. 1. On October 30, 2014, 4 Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting nine claims for relief. Dkt. 18. 5 On March 19, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 25. On 6 May 15, 2015, Defendants filed a cross motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 29. On 7 June 15, 2015, Plaintiffs responded. Dkt. 31. On July 16, 2015, Defendants replied. 8 Dkt. 33. On October 20, 2015, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary 9 judgment and denies Plaintiffs’ motion. Dkt. 36. On October 21, 2015, the Clerk entered 10 Judgment in favor of Defendants. Dkt. 37. 11 On November 3, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 38. On 12 November 4, 2015, the Court requested a response from Defendants. Dkt. 39. On 13 November 13, 2015, Defendants responded. Dkt. 42. On November 20, 2015, Plaintiffs 14 replied. Dkt. 43. On November 27, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for leave to file a 15 surreply and attached a proposed surreply. Dkt. 44. On November 30, 2015, Plaintiffs 16 responded. Dkt. 45. On December 3, 2015, Defendants replied. Dkt. 46. 17 On January 13, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, 18 vacated its previous ruling and judgment. Dkt. 48. 19 20 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND In 1976, Congress enacted the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act – 21 commonly known as the Magnuson-Stevens Act (“MSA”) – to “conserve and manage the 22 fishery resources found off the coasts of the United States” and “to promote domestic ORDER - 2 1 commercial and recreational fishing under sound conservation and management 2 principles.” 16 U.S.C. §§ 1801(b)(1), (3). The Act establishes an Exclusive Economic 3 Zone extending seaward from each coastal state, and, with exceptions not relevant here, 4 subjects each fishery within the Economic Zone to NMFS’ management authority. Id. at 5 §§ 1802(11), 1811. 6 The MSA establishes eight regional fishery management councils, which are 7 composed of federal, state, and territorial fishery management officials with expertise in 8 conservation, management, or harvest of fishery resources within the council’s 9 geographic purview. Id. at § 1852(b). The principal task of each council is to 10 recommend Fishery Management Plans and Plan amendments to “achieve and maintain, 11 on a continuing basis, the optimum yield” from fisheries under their authority. Id. at §§ 12 1801(b)(4), 1852(a)(1), (h)(1). Councils may also submit regulations “necessary or 13 appropriate” to implement a Plan or Plan amendment, or to modify existing regulations. 14 Id. at § 1853(c). As applicable here, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council has 15 authority to recommend Fishery Management Plans, amendments, and regulations for 16 fisheries in the Arctic Ocean, Bering Sea, and Pacific Ocean seaward of Alaska. Id. at § 17 1852(a)(1)(G). 18 Councils submit recommendations to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, 19 or partial approval. Id. at §§ 1852(h), 1853(c), 1854(a)–(b). If NMFS approves all or 20 part of a council’s proposal, the agency must publish notice in the Federal Register and 21 request public comment for a period of up to 60 days. Id. at §§ 1854(a)(1), (b)(1). 22 Among the tools available to councils is a “limited access system,” or a fishery where ORDER - 3 1 participation is restricted by regulation or by a Fishery Management Plan. Id. at §§ 2 1802(27), 1853(b)(6). A limited access system may include a “limited access privilege 3 program,” which creates quota share (“QS”) corresponding to a portion of the fishery’s 4 total allowable catch. Id. at §§ 1802(26), 1853(b)(6); see generally Pac. Coast Fed’n of 5 Fishermen’s Ass’ns v. Blank, 693 F.3d 1084, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2012). The creation and 6 allocation of a quota does not create “any right, title, or interest in or to any fish before 7 the fish is harvested by the holder” and does not “confer any right of compensation to the 8 holder. . . if . . . revoked, limited, or modified.” 16 U.S.C. §§ 1853a(b)(3), (4). 9 In 1953, Congress enacted the Halibut Act to implement a convention between the 10 United States and Canada. 16 U.S.C. § 773(a). The act authorizes the International 11 Pacific Halibut Commission to adopt regulations for conservation of halibut along the 12 west coasts of the United States and Canada, but these regulations are not effective in the 13 United States until approved by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce 14 (“the Secretary”). Id. at § 773b. Moreover, the Halibut Act authorizes NMFS to adopt 15 regulations necessary for implementation of the Convention and the Act itself. Id. at § 16 773c. 17 The regional councils established under the MSA may also recommend 18 regulations for halibut management. Id. at § 773c(c). NMFS may approve 19 recommendations that are fair and equitable, reasonably calculated to promote 20 conservation, and carried out in such a manner that no particular individual, corporation, 21 or other entity acquires an excessive share of the halibut fishing privileges. Id. 22 Additionally, any regulation recommended by a council and adopted by NMFS must be ORDER - 4 1 consistent with the MSA’s provisions for limited access systems. Id. (citing 16 U.S.C. § 2 1853(b)(6)). 3 Pacific Halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) can reach 500 pounds and reside in 4 colder waters on both sides of the Pacific Ocean, while the sablefish (Anoplopoma 5 fimbria) is a smaller, elongated species occupying waters from northern Mexico to the 6 Bering Sea. Sablefish is managed as part of the “groundfish” fishery under the MSA, 7 while halibut is regulated under the Halibut Act. By the early 1990s, both fisheries – each 8 of which relies on “hook and line” gear – were at risk of overcapitalization in Alaskan 9 coastal waters. 10 In an effort to protect halibut, sablefish, and the coastal communities that harvest 11 each species, NMFS adopted the North Pacific Council’s (“Council”) recommended 12 limited access privilege program in 1993. 58 Fed. Reg. 59375 (Nov. 9, 1993). The 13 program created QS allowing “qualified persons” to harvest a portion of allowable catch 14 for sablefish or halibut, and allocated the share based upon each “qualified person’s” 15 adjusted harvest of fish during the late 1980s. 57 Fed. Reg. 57130, 57133 (Dec. 3, 1992). 16 A qualified person, in relevant part, “is a citizen of the United States at the time of 17 application for QS,” or a “non-individual entity,” such as a “corporation, partnership, [or] 18 association.” 50 C.F.R. § 679.40. A holder of the share generally must remain onboard 19 the harvesting vessel at all times, including when landing. 50 C.F.R. §§ 679.42(c), (i). 20 QS is transferable, permitting “second generation” fishermen to harvest sablefish 21 and halibut even if they were not initial recipients of a share and efficiently allocating 22 harvesting privileges within the fleet. 57 Fed. Reg. at 57136. As NMFS noted early on, ORDER - 5 1 however, the free transfer of QS “could lead to an excessive share of harvesting 2 privileges . . . held by a single individual or corporation” or “to localized overfishing.” 3 Id. Accordingly, QS can usually move only within predefined areas, and only between 4 vessels of similar size and purpose. See id. at 57134 (describing vessel categories); id. at 5 57136 (describing restrictions); see generally 50 C.F.R. § 679.41(g) (implementing 6 restrictions). Generally, a recipient of transferred QS must have either received the share 7 during the initial allocation or crewed a vessel in any United States fishery. 50 C.F.R. §§ 8 679.41(g)(1), (2). “The rationale for this measure is to assure that [Individual Fishing 9 Quotas] remain in the hands of fishermen who have a history of past participation and 10 current dependence on the fishery.” 57 Fed. Reg. at 57133. 11 In 2010, the Council was concerned that these transfer restrictions were inadequate 12 to preserve the character of the halibut and sablefish fisheries, risking consolidation of 13 QS among a small number of fishermen and discouraging formation of an “owner14 operated” fleet. See 78 Fed. Reg. at 24708. Thus, NMFS limited the total QS held by 15 any one person and the annual harvest from any one vessel. See 50 C.F.R. §§ 679.42(e)16 (f), (h). Because these measures sometimes created very small, commercially 17 unattractive portions of QS, NMFS consolidated these portions into undivided wholes, or 18 “blocks.” See 78 Fed. Reg. at 24708. With certain exceptions, these blocks may be used 19 and transferred as normal QS. 50 C.F.R. §§ 679.41(e), 679.42(g). Moreover, in certain 20 circumstances holders may consolidate, or “sweep up” blocked shares, to create a single, 21 indivisible unit. Id. at §§ 679.41(e)(1), (2). 22 ORDER - 6 1 Despite NMFS’ additional restrictions, NMFS claims that ongoing QS 2 consolidation threatens to exclude new fisherman and produce a fleet largely divorced 3 from the coastal communities that have traditionally depended on the halibut and 4 sablefish fisheries. AR 10173. According to the Council and NMFS, this phenomenon 5 largely flows from an exception to the requirement that holders of QS remain onboard the 6 harvesting vessel at all times. See 50 C.F.R. at § 679.42(i)(1). Under this exception, an 7 initial recipient of QS may use a “hired master” to harvest fish if the recipient has 8 retained a twenty percent interest in the harvesting vessel, encouraging the holder to 9 acquire and retain QS rather than let the share pass to new fisherman. Id.; 78 Fed. Reg. at 10 24708-09. 11 Seeking to secure transition to an owner-operator fleet, the Council heard 12 testimony on the “hired master exception” beginning in February of 2010. By April of 13 2011, the Council proposed to bar hired masters from harvesting Quota Share acquired 14 after February 12, 2010 (the “control date”) unless that QS is consolidated, or “swept 15 up,” with “blocked” QS acquired before the control date. Id. at 24710. NMFS claims 16 that these measures will further Council objectives by “(1) preventing further increase in 17 the use of hired masters while minimizing disruption to operations of small businesses 18 that have historically used hired masters, and (2) discouraging further consolidation of 19 QS among initial recipients who use hired masters.” Id. at 24709. On April 26, 2013, 20 NMFS proposed a rule to this effect, allowed public comments, and issued a final rule on 21 July 28, 2014. 79 Fed. Reg. 43679 (“Final Rule”). The rule became effective on 22 December 1, 2014 (the “effective date”), or nearly five years after the control date. Id. ORDER - 7 1 The Final Rule governs both “fixed-gear commercial Pacific halibut and sablefish 2 fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands and the Gulf of Alaska.” Id. 3 III. DISCUSSION 4 A. Summary Judgment Standard 5 Summary judgment is proper only if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure 6 materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material 7 fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 8 The moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law when the nonmoving party 9 fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of a claim in the case on which 10 the nonmoving party has the burden of proof. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 11 323 (1986). There is no genuine issue of fact for trial where the record, taken as a whole, 12 could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. 13 Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986) (nonmoving party must 14 present specific, significant probative evidence, not simply “some metaphysical doubt”). 15 See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Conversely, a genuine dispute over a material fact exists 16 if there is sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute, requiring a judge or 17 jury to resolve the differing versions of the truth. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 18 U.S. 242, 253 (1986); T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 19 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). 20 The determination of the existence of a material fact is often a close question. The 21 Court must consider the substantive evidentiary burden that the nonmoving party must 22 meet at trial – e.g., a preponderance of the evidence in most civil cases. Anderson, 477 ORDER - 8 1 U.S. at 254; T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc., 809 F.2d at 630. The Court must resolve any factual 2 issues of controversy in favor of the nonmoving party only when the facts specifically 3 attested by that party contradict facts specifically attested by the moving party. The 4 nonmoving party may not merely state that it will discredit the moving party’s evidence 5 at trial, in the hopes that evidence can be developed at trial to support the claim. T.W. 6 Elec. Serv., Inc., 809 F.2d at 630 (relying on Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255). Conclusory, 7 nonspecific statements in affidavits are not sufficient, and missing facts will not be 8 presumed. Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 888-89 (1990). 9 B. 10 The MSA, Halibut Act, and the National Standards At this point, it is undisputed that the National Standards apply to the Final Rule 11 because the Final Rule regulates the sablefish fishery. With regard to standards 9 and 10, 12 the Court noted in its previous opinion that Defendants “failed to even consider” these 13 standards. Dkt. 36 at 10 n.1. The Court’s statement is not entirely accurate because 14 Defendants cited the record showing that NOAA concluded that, for each standard, the 15 “alternatives are consistent with this standard.” AR 10215. These assertions, however, 16 are not even cursory, they are conclusory. Oregon Trollers Ass’n v. Gutierrez, 452 F.3d 17 1104, 1123 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Although cursory, this analysis indicates that the NMFS 18 considered National Standard No. 10 and thus discharged its duty under § 1855(a)(10).”). 19 Thus, Plaintiffs’ argument that Defendants failed to properly assess the Final Rule in light 20 of the national standards has merit. 21 Defendants provide two arguments in response. First, Defendants argue that 22 Plaintiffs waived these arguments because Plaintiffs failed to expressly raise the ORDER - 9 1 argument during the agency proceeding. Dkt. 29 at 26–28; Dkt. 33 at 6–7; Dkt. 42 at 5. 2 While Defendants are correct that this rule applies in some circumstances, they fail to 3 show that it applies in this case. For example, when a party challenges an agency’s 4 failure to consider proposed alternatives to the proposed action that were not presented to 5 the agency, the Supreme Court has held that the party has forfeited any objections based 6 on those proposed alternatives. Dep’t of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 764–765 7 (2004) (“Respondents have therefore forfeited any objection to the [Environmental 8 Assessment] on the ground that it failed adequately to discuss potential alternatives to the 9 proposed action.”). However, Defendants have failed to cite, and the Court is unaware 10 of, any authority that has adopted the waiver rule when a party contends that an agency 11 failed to comply with statutory mandates. Although dicta, the Supreme Court stated that 12 “the agency bears the primary responsibility to ensure that it complies with [federal law] . 13 . . .” Id. at 765. This is the most reasonable application of the law, and, in the context of 14 this case, Defendants must ensure that “[a]ny fishery management plan . . . shall be 15 consistent with the following national standards . . . .” 16 U.S.C. § 1851(a). Therefore, 16 the Court denies Defendants’ motion on the issue of waiver. 17 Second, Defendants contend that it is Plaintiffs’ burden to submit evidence 18 establishing that implementation of the Final Rule will violate a particular national 19 standard. Dkt. 42 at 6. Defendants, however, again fail to recognize Congress’s mandate 20 that they must ensure that the Final Rule is consistent with the National Standards. A 21 bare conclusion that the rule is consistent with a particular standard is arbitrary, 22 capricious, and otherwise not in accordance with law. Moreover, Defendants concede ORDER - 10 1 that “National Standard 10 was never at issue during the [Final Rule’s] development” and 2 rely on Oregon Trollers to provide post issuance, litigation driven rationalizations. Dkt. 3 29 at 37–38. Defendants contend that the Final Rule is “neutral” as to safety at sea and 4 promotes safety to the extent practicable. But, in Oregon Trollers, the agency provided 5 this reasoning, not the agency’s lawyers during litigation. 452 F.3d at 1123. “[T]he 6 agency must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its 7 action including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” 8 Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 9 (1983) (citing Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). In this 10 case, Defendants did not provide any reason for why the Final Rule was “consistent” with 11 at least National Standards 9 or 10. Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion on this 12 issue. 13 C. Other Issues and Remedy 14 Although the Court previously considered the Rehabilitation Act and retroactivity, 15 the Court declines to consider these issues at this time. The “cardinal principle of judicial 16 restraint” is that “if it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more.” 17 PDK Labs., Inc. v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 362 F. 3d 786, 799 (D.C. Cir. 2004) 18 (Roberts, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Defendants requested that, 19 if the Court found for Plaintiffs on any issue, the Court allow the parties “an opportunity 20 to brief the appropriate remedy.” Dkt. 33 at 17. The Court agrees with Defendants 21 because the parties dispute the breadth of any remedy and Defendants imply that the 22 Court may essentially sever the rule with respect to the different fisheries. Dkt. 42 at 7. ORDER - 11 1 Therefore, the Court requests a proposed briefing schedule as to any remedy as a result of 2 this order. After a remedy is determined, if the Court concludes that it must address the 3 other issues in this case, then the parties’ motions will be renoted on the Court’s calendar. 4 5 IV. ORDER Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment 6 (Dkt. 25) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part without prejudice and 7 Defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 29) is DENIED in part with 8 prejudice and DENIED in part without prejudice. The parties shall submit a briefing 9 schedule for remedies. 10 Dated this 13th day of January, 2016. A 11 12 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER - 12

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?