Alfa Int'l Seafood, Inc. v. Ross, 320 F. Supp. 3d 184

Nine U.S. seafood importers and related businesses challenged the Seafood Traceability Rule; three environmental groups (Oceana, NRDC, Center for Biological Diversity) moved to intervene to defend the Rule but the district court denied intervention (April 17 Order).
The Conservation Groups appealed the denial of intervention to the D.C. Circuit. While that appeal was pending, the district court granted summary judgment for defendants upholding the Rule.
Plaintiffs did not appeal the merits judgment; the Conservation Groups' appeal from the intervention denial was therefore rendered moot and the D.C. Circuit dismissed it.
The D.C. Circuit remanded, instructing the district court to treat the Groups’ request for vacatur of the April 17 Order as a Rule 60(b) motion (citing U.S. Bancorp v. Bonner Mall principles).
The Conservation Groups moved to vacate the April 17 Order; plaintiffs opposed on standing, timeliness, and equitable grounds. The district court considered standing, timeliness of appeal, and whether vacatur was warranted under equitable principles.
The court concluded the Groups had standing to seek vacatur, their appeal was timely under Rule 4(a)(1)(B), and vacatur was appropriate because mootness resulted from circumstances beyond the Groups’ control and fairness favored vacatur.

Issue	Plaintiffs' Argument	Defendants' Argument	Held
Standing to seek vacatur	Groups lack Article III standing now that the district case is over	Groups had standing at commencement and may seek relief from the final order affecting them	Court: Groups have standing to seek vacatur; standing assessed at commencement and persists for this remedy
Timeliness of the Groups’ appeal	Notice of appeal was untimely because Groups were not "parties" and thus bound by a 30-day limit	Groups were "parties" for appeal of denial of intervention and timely filed under the 60-day rule	Court: Appeal timely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B); Eisenstein does not control here
Whether vacatur is appropriate when the prevailing side on the merits moots the appeal	Vacatur inappropriate because the unsuccessful intervenors’ side lost on the merits and the prevailing litigant mooted review	Vacatur proper because mootness resulted from plaintiffs’ decision not to appeal (outside Groups’ control) and fairness favors vacatur	Court: Vacatur warranted under Rule 60(b)(6)/Munsingwear principles; equities favor vacatur
Whether allowing the order to stand would produce unfair precedential harm	Plaintiffs: Groups did not show likely adverse precedential effect, so no injury	Groups: Adverse effect on their ability to litigate intervention in future; vacatur clears path for relitigation	Court: No precedential-force barrier; vacatur clears path for future intervention efforts and is equitable

Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (Rule 60(b) provides authority to vacate judgments to accomplish justice)
Sands v. NLRB, 825 F.3d 778 (D.C. Cir.) (vacatur is the normal practice when mootness prevents appellate review)
U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P'ship, 513 U.S. 18 (vacatur may be denied where mootness results from voluntary actions like settlement)
United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (vacatur clears the path for future relitigation when review is prevented by happenstance)
Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692 (equitable considerations in vacatur; exception when lower-court winner seeks relief)
Maydak v. United States, 630 F.3d 166 (D.C. Cir.) (district-court decisions typically vacated when no review occurred due to mootness)