In Re ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SECTION 4 DEADLINE LITIGATION
277 F.R.D. 1
D.D.C.2011Background
- MDL challenges FWS deadlines for ESA listing decisions; settlements require timely determinations but do not mandate specific outcomes.
- SCI moves to intervene to oppose settlements because three species could be listed, affecting hunting rights.
- Court previously denied identical intervention in 2010 on standing grounds (TRC-like reasoning).
- Settlement agreements set schedules to resolve backlog of warranted-but-precluded species by 2012–2017, without dictating listing results.
- Court analyzes Article III standing and procedural standing, then evaluates permissive intervention considerations.
- Court DENIES SCI intervention as of right and also DENIES permissive intervention due to potential delay and lack of contribution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SCI has standing to intervene as of right | SCI asserts injury-in-fact from potential hunting impact. | Injury depends on substantive listing outcomes not before the court; no causation/redressability. | No standing; intervention denied as of right. |
| Whether SCI should be allowed to intervene permissively | SCI would contribute expertise on hunting interests. | Intervention would delay proceedings and unfairly burden FWS under settlements. | Discretionary denial; no permissive intervention. |
| Whether the settlements implicate procedural rights or agency timing | Settlements merely set deadlines; do not alter listing merits. | Timetable fulfilment is central; proceduralstanding concerns are unfounded. | Settlements do not violate procedural requirements; no basis for SCI standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Norton, 322 F.3d 728 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (standing requires injury traceable to challenged conduct and redressable by court)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Supreme Court 1992) (three elements of standing: injury, causation, redressability)
- In re Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, 270 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2010) (intervention timing and standing analysis in MDL context)
- CBD v. EPA, 274 F.R.D. 305 (D.D.C. 2011) (administrative intervention and standing in environmental rulemaking context)
- Florida Audubon Society v. Bentsen, 94 F.3d 658 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (procedural standing where breach must threaten concrete interests)
- United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (standing and intervention considerations in complex actions)