West Coast Seafood Processors Ass'n v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
643 F.3d 701
9th Cir.2011Background
- WCSPA sought to intervene as a defendant in NRDC's challenge to NMFS's Groundfish Plan amendments and 2009-10 Specifications.
- NRDC originally challenged the Groundfish Plan amendments; WCSPA participated as amicus for years but did not intervene.
- NRDC amended its complaint multiple times; in 2009 NRDC added a challenge to NMFS's 2009-10 Specifications via a Fifth Amended Complaint.
- The district court denied WCSPA's timely intervention as untimely due to the age of the litigation (eight years).
- NRDC–NMFS litigation concluded with an Order on Remedy directing new Specifications and a final judgment; NMFS appealed but dismissed.
- The Ninth Circuit dismissed WCSPA's appeal as moot, holding the underlying dispute over the 2009-10 Specifications had ended.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was WCSPA’s intervention timely sought as of right? | WCSPA argues timely due to changed circumstances from Fifth Amended Complaint. | District court held eight-year lapse rendered intervention untimely. | Untimeliness affirmed; however, the dissent would reach merits under an exception. |
| Does the capably of repetition, yet evading review exception apply to mootness here? | Dissent argues the case falls within capable of repetition, yet evading review. | Majority holds no such exception; case is moot with no effective relief. | Majority: moot; Dissent: exception applies, reaching merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Outdoor Media Group, Inc. v. City of Beaumont, 506 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2007) (mootness; requires present controversy and potential relief)
- Vill. of Gambell v. Babbitt, 999 F.2d 403 (9th Cir. 1993) (capable of repetition but evading review framework)
- Doe v. Madison Sch. Dist. No. 321, 177 F.3d 789 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc opinion; example of repetition evading review)
- Sze v. INS, 153 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 1998) (reasonable expectation doctrine in repetition)
- LULAC v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297 (9th Cir. 1997) (timeliness factors for intervention)
- Canatella v. California, 404 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2005) (intervention when underlying litigation alive)