West v. Horner
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103583
D.D.C.2011Background
- NEPA requires environmental review (EIS/EA/CE) for road projects; CE avoids EIS/EA.
- VDOT proposed 2009 I-95/395 HOT Lanes project in Northern Virginia; FHWA granted CE in January 2009.
- Plaintiff Arthur West, a Washington resident, alleged NEPA violations and improper delegation of NEPA authority.
- VDOT withdrew the 2009 project; FHWA rescinded the CE in March 2011; VDOT announced a new 2011 HOT Lanes project.
- Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief; Defendants moved to dismiss; Plaintiff moved to amend to address 2011 project and BRAC-related claims.
- Court held 2009 project claims moot and denied amendment due to lack of final agency action for 2011 project.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the 2009 Project NEPA claims moot? | West contends controversy remains and relief possible. | Withdrawal and rescission render claims moot. | Yes, moot; no live controversy remains. |
| Does voluntary cessation preserve live litigation status? | Actions after Arlington litigation show ongoing controversy. | Voluntary cessation does not defeat mootness when no ongoing violation exists. | No; cessation does not create live controversy. |
| Is amendment to address the 2011 Project futile or premature? | Amendment seeks NEPA review of new project and related BRAC claims. | 2011 Project lacks final agency action; amendment would be premature and unrelated claims improper. | Amendment denied as futile; no final agency action for 2011 project. |
| Can the 2011 Project claims be reviewed under the APA without final agency action? | Final agency action will be reviewable under the APA once action occurs. | No final agency action shown; APA review not available. | Claims premature; no final action to review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472 (1990) (case-or-controversy requirement applies at all stages)
- McBryde v. Committee to Review Circuit Council Conduct and Disability Orders of Judicial Conference of U.S., 264 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (mootness requires ongoing effects or relief)
- Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) (standing and mootness considerations; ongoing controversy required)
- Fund for Animals, Inc. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 460 F.3d 13 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (courts decline to review policy questions in the abstract)
- Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 (1937) (public-policy limitations on judicial review)
- Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. U.S., 570 F.3d 316 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (exception to mootness when issues are capable of repetition yet evading review)
- James Madison Ltd. v. Ludwig, 82 F.3d 1085 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (amendments can be denied as futile if new claims would not survive dismissal)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (final agency action and administrative finality analysis)
- Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992) (finality and decisionmaking process for agency actions)
- CSI Aviation Services, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, 637 F.3d 408 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (final agency action and administrative review concepts under the APA)
- U.S. Ecology, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 231 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (scope of agency action and jurisdictional review standards)
- Leatherman v. Tarrant Cty. Narcotics & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163 (1993) (constitutional pleading standards; liberal construction of complaints)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading a claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (plausibility standard; factual content required)
- Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (1974) (pleading standards and favorable inferences on motion to dismiss)