Alfa International Seafood, Inc. v. Pritzker
Civil Action No. 2017-0031
| D.D.C. | May 8, 2017Background
- ABSC (Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers), a trade association for Bering Sea/Aleutian Island king crab fishermen, moved to intervene to defend the Seafood Import Monitoring Program ("Seafood Traceability Rule" or "the Rule").
- ABSC alleges its members hold federally granted quota shares and suffer economic harm from illegally caught (IUU) Russian king crab that depresses U.S. market prices.
- ABSC submitted the declaration of its president, Kale Garcia, and supporting reports showing significant U.S. imports of Russian king crab and prior price impacts from IUU fishing.
- Plaintiffs challenged ABSC’s standing and timeliness; they argued ABSC’s injury is speculative, outdated, and not traceable to the Rule, and relied on a prior denial of intervention to environmental groups.
- The court concluded ABSC demonstrated concrete, particularized economic injury, causation and redressability tied to potential vacatur of the Rule, and satisfied Rule 24(a) minimal requirements showing the federal defendants may not adequately represent ABSC’s distinct financial interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing | ABSC's injury speculative, based on international markets and outdated data; U.S.-Russia agreement reduces IUU risk | ABSC provided historical, empirical evidence that IUU Russian crab depresses U.S. prices and Rule would deter/import monitoring would help | Court: ABSC has concrete, particularized injury, causation, and redressability; standing established |
| Third-party causation standard | Vacatur's harms are caused by third-party Russian fishers, so ABSC must meet a stricter causation standard | The Rule directly targets the third-party conduct; ABSC offered substantial evidence linking Rule to reduced IUU infiltration and market benefits for members | Court: Stricter standard satisfied; causal link and likelihood of redress shown |
| Competitor standing doctrine | ABSC cannot rely on competitor standing because vacatur would not legalize IUU fishing (IUU illegal regardless) | The Rule does not lift restrictions on competitors; it aims to deter illegal competitors, reducing unfair competition | Court: Competitor-standing doctrine inapplicable; ABSC’s injury is independent and cognizable |
| Adequacy of government representation (Rule 24) | Federal defendants will adequately defend the Rule; ABSC’s motion is untimely/disruptive | ABSC has a distinct financial/regulatory stake (quota shares) that the government lacks; courts view government representation skeptically when private financial interests differ | Court: Minimal showing met; federal defendants may not adequately represent ABSC; intervention as of right granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (standing requires concrete and particularized injury)
- Trbovich v. United Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528 (1972) (Rule 24(a)(2) inadequate-representation showing is minimal)
- Dynalantic Corp. v. Department of Defense, 115 F.3d 1012 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (causation and redressability often overlap)
- Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Norton, 322 F.3d 728 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (intervenor standing where reversal of agency action would cause economic harm and relief would prevent loss)
- Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies v. FEC, 788 F.3d 312 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (courts skeptical of government adequately representing private parties)
- Dimond v. District of Columbia, 792 F.2d 179 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (private financial stake supports finding of inadequate representation)
- Sherley v. Sebelius, 610 F.3d 69 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (competitor standing requires actual or imminent increase in competition)
- Arpaio v. Obama, 797 F.3d 11 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (when injury stems from third-party conduct, substantial evidence of causal relationship required)