200 F. Supp. 3d 1129
D. Mont.2016Background
- Plaintiffs challenged the USFS Greater Red Lodge Project under the ESA, NEPA, and NFMA and moved for a preliminary injunction after summary-judgment briefing closed.
- Defendants notified Plaintiffs that on-the-ground logging would begin July 15, 2016; Plaintiffs filed for injunctive relief and the court scheduled a hearing for July 8, 2016.
- Federal Defendants notified the court that the USFS discovered errors in the Project’s Biological Assessment regarding lynx critical habitat and matrix habitat and suspended implementation while reinitiating Section 7 consultation.
- Federal Defendants moved to stay all district-court proceedings pending reconsultation and also failed to timely respond to Plaintiffs’ preliminary-injunction motion under local rules.
- Plaintiffs argued the reinitiation would not resolve their ESA claims (including challenges to lynx-related analyses) nor their NEPA and NFMA claims; they opposed a stay.
- The court declined to stay, reasoning reinitiation likely will not moot the live controversies and NEPA/NFMA claims remain unaffected; the court set a status conference to proceed on scheduling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should stay proceedings pending USFS reinitiation of Section 7 consultation | Reinitiation will not resolve Plaintiffs’ ESA claims or their NEPA/NFMA claims; dispute remains live | Reinitiation and suspension of on-the-ground work will likely moot claims; stay avoids wasting resources | Denied — reinitiation unlikely to moot all claims; stay would not simplify issues |
| Whether reinitiation of consultation renders case moot | Reinitiation does not eliminate present and future consequences or afford requested relief | Reinitiation will produce new documents and potentially a new decision that could moote litigation | Court: burden on movant to show no effective relief; movants did not meet heavy burden; case not moot |
| Effect of reinitiation on NEPA and NFMA claims | Reconsultation does not necessarily trigger new NEPA analyses and thus does not cure NEPA/NFMA claims | Reconsultation and suspension of implementation minimize need for immediate judicial review | Court: reinitiation does not address NEPA/NFMA; those claims remain for judicial resolution |
| Whether staying litigation is required to avoid interfering with agency decisionmaking | Plaintiffs: court can tailor schedule; review won't impede agency limited reconsultation | Defendants: judicial proceedings would interfere with agency environmental review and planning | Court: limited agency action (suspension) does not justify stay; can manage docket without stay |
Key Cases Cited
- Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1936) (courts have inherent power to stay proceedings to manage their docket)
- Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2005) (factors for deciding stays, including possible damage and simplification of issues)
- Hunt v. Imperial Merchant Servs., Inc., 560 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2009) (movant asserting mootness bears a heavy burden)
- Forest Guardians v. Johanns, 450 F.3d 455 (9th Cir. 2006) (court should not dismiss a live controversy as moot if declaratory relief could be effective)
- Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 132 F. Supp. 2d 876 (D. Or. 2001) (agency decisions replacing a record of decision can render litigation moot)