995 F. Supp. 2d 1148
D. Mont.2014Background
- On May 16, 2013, the court granted summary judgment finding Defendants violated the ESA by failing to reinitiate consultation after critical habitat designation for Canada lynx.
- Lynx critical habitat was designated in 11 national forests under the Lynx Amendment programmatic directions.
- The court ordered Defendants to reinitiate consultation but denied a blanket injunction on all Lynx Amendment projects.
- Defendants appealed on July 12, 2013; a motion to stay was filed November 8, 2013 and fully briefed December 23, 2013; the Ninth Circuit appeal is pending.
- Rule 62(c) governs stays; four-factor test applies, with irreparable harm threshold being a key requirement.
- The court denied the stay, finding no irreparable harm and insufficient likelihood of success on the merits, and substantial public interest against a stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Irreparable harm supports a stay? | Plaintiffs contend irreparable harm is present due to ongoing ESA violation and environmental delay. | Defendants argue irreparable harm from costs and potential mootness of appeal if consultation completes first. | No, irreparable harm not shown matters outweighing other factors. |
| Likelihood of success on merits? | Plaintiffs maintain Defendants cannot show a substantial case or split on controlling ESA law. | Defendants claim a substantial case exists via circuit split and serious legal questions. | Bare minimum merits shown; not a strong likelihood of success on the merits. |
| Public interest and injury to plaintiffs? | Staying would undermine ESA protections and cause ongoing environmental harm. | Defendants emphasize integrity of appellate proceedings and public interest in resources. | Public interest weighs against a stay; ESA violation supports denying stay. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (U.S. 2009) (four-factor stay test; burden on movant; irreparable harm threshold)
- Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (S. Ct. 1987) (guides four-factor stay analysis)
- Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (S. Ct. 2008) (irreparable harm threshold; likelihood of success on merits threshold)
- Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2011) (irreparable harm is a bedrock requirement; sliding-scale approach)
- Thomas v. Peterson, 753 F.2d 754 (9th Cir. 1985) (environmental impact and irreparable harm considerations in ESA context)
- Grand Canyon Trust v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 691 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2012) (mootness and stay considerations in agency actions)
- Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Service, 82 F. Supp. 2d 1070 (D. Ariz. 2000) (mootness considerations in ESA consultation context)
- Pacific Rivers Council v. Thomas, 30 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 1994) (scope of agency action under the ESA; established Ninth Circuit stance)
- Idaho Conserv. League v. Mumma, 956 F.2d 1508 (9th Cir. 1992) (procedural ESA violations and harm assessment)