Friends of Animals v. McCarthy
258 F. Supp. 3d 91
D.D.C.2017Background
- Friends of Animals filed suit on July 22, 2016 under the APA seeking a court order that EPA decide a May 19, 2015 petition to review/cancel registration of the pesticide ZonaStat-H and asking the court to require a decision within 60 days.
- Parties stayed the case for settlement; EPA subsequently issued a final decision denying the petition and the parties so notified the Court.
- After EPA’s decision, the Court ordered plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed as moot.
- Plaintiff moved for leave to file an amended and supplemental complaint challenging the agency’s denial as arbitrary and capricious, but did not attach the proposed amended complaint as required by Local Civil Rule 7(i).
- Defendants opposed leave to amend and moved to dismiss the original complaint as moot; plaintiff conceded the original claim was moot but argued it should be allowed to amend to challenge the merits.
- The Court denied leave to amend for failure to comply with local rules and granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the original complaint as moot for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff should be allowed to file an amended/supplemental complaint | Plaintiff sought leave to amend to challenge EPA’s denial on the merits (arbitrary and capricious). | Defendants argued plaintiff failed to follow Local Civ. R. 7(i) (no proposed amended pleading attached) and that the original claim is moot. | Denied — motion to amend denied for failing to attach the proposed amended complaint as required. |
| Whether the court retains jurisdiction after EPA issued a final decision (mootness) | Plaintiff conceded original claim was moot but asked to proceed by amendment to challenge the final agency action. | Defendants argued issuance of the final decision rendered the original delay-based claim moot and divested the Court of jurisdiction over that claim. | Granted — dismissal of the original complaint as moot for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; plaintiff must file a new action to challenge the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Gen. Motors Corp. v. EPA, 363 F.3d 442 (court begins and ends with examination of jurisdiction)
- Akinseye v. District of Columbia, 339 F.3d 970 (parties cannot confer subject-matter jurisdiction by agreement)
- Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (Article III limits courts to actual, ongoing controversies)
- Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395 (federal courts’ constitutional limits and case-or-controversy requirement)
- Conservation Force, Inc. v. Jewell, 733 F.3d 1200 (case becomes moot when plaintiff obtained all relief sought)
- Schmidt v. United States, 749 F.3d 1064 (failure to attach proposed amended complaint is proper ground to deny leave to amend)
- Rollins v. Wackenhut Servs., Inc., 703 F.3d 122 (same)
- Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67 (federal courts lack jurisdiction to decide moot cases)