Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. v. United States, 456 F.Supp.3d 1292

The vaquita, an endangered porpoise endemic to the northern Gulf of California, has declined precipitously (from ~567 in the late 1990s to ~15) and is threatened primarily by incidental mortality in gillnets used in local fisheries.
Plaintiffs (NRDC, Center for Biological Diversity, Animal Welfare Institute) sued federal agencies under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA §101(a)(2)) and the APA, seeking an import ban on fish/products from Mexican fisheries using gillnets inside the vaquita’s range.
The Court granted a preliminary injunction (July 26, 2018) enjoining imports of shrimp, curvina, sierra, and chano caught with gillnets in the vaquita’s range; the Government appealed and sought stays that were denied.
NMFS later issued a determination imposing an embargo only on curvina (Nov. 27, 2018); the Government moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims as moot, arguing it had taken final agency action.
On March 9, 2020 NOAA published a Federal Register notice revoking comparability findings and announcing an immediate embargo that adopted the court-ordered ban and expanded it to cover additional species caught with gillnets inside the vaquita’s range (effective April 3, 2020).
The parties stipulated to a voluntary dismissal under CIT R. 41(a)(2); the Court lifted its preliminary injunction, dismissed the case without prejudice, ordered the Government to pay $35,000 to CBD and AWI under EAJA, and retained jurisdiction to enforce that payment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness: whether agency action moots Plaintiffs’ §706(1) APA/MMPA claim	NMRC: Government actions did not satisfy MMPA mandate; claims not moot because vaquita still imperiled and measures inadequate	Ross/NOAA: NMFS’s determinations are final agency actions that foreclose §706(1) relief and render the case moot	The court did not resolve the merits; NOAA’s later embargo materially matched/expanded the relief sought, parties settled, and court granted voluntary dismissal and lifted injunction
Scope/form of remedy under MMPA: whether court or agency decides precise import controls	Plaintiffs: MMPA requires an import ban where U.S. bycatch standards are exceeded; government must ban imports from gillnet fisheries in vaquita range	Government: agency has discretion over the form of action; courts cannot substitute their remedy choice for agency's	The court previously ordered an import ban in the preliminary injunction but, after agency action and settlement, did not decide the disputed scope on the merits
Attorneys’ fees and costs	Plaintiffs (CBD & AWI) sought recovery under EAJA and other statutes	Government negotiated payment as part of settlement	Court approved settlement: Government to pay $35,000 to CBD and AWI; NRDC bears its own fees; court retained jurisdiction to enforce payment

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Ross, 331 F. Supp. 3d 1338 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2018) (opinion granting preliminary injunction ordering import ban under MMPA)
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Ross, 331 F. Supp. 3d 1381 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2018) (opinion clarifying scope of injunction)
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Ross, 348 F. Supp. 3d 1306 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2018) (opinion addressing stay and related proceedings)
Earth Island Institute v. Brown, 28 F.3d 76 (9th Cir. 1994) (discussing exclusive CIT jurisdiction over MMPA import-embargo claims)
American Signature, Inc. v. United States, 598 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (public interest favors ensuring government compliance with statutory mandates)