Western Wood Preservers Institute v. McHugh
2013 WL 3791477
D.C. Cir.2013Background
- Plaintiffs sued the Secretary of the Army, the Army Corps, and the Acting Secretary of Commerce challenging the Corps’ approval of two regional conditions to nationwide permits under the Clean Water Act and related operating procedures.
- On February 27, 2013, the court held plaintiffs lacked standing and dismissed some claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint adding two member firms and sought reconsideration of the dismissal.
- The court treated the motions as Rule 15(a) leave to amend and Rule 59(e) reconsideration, given there were no surviving claims after the initial dismissal.
- The court denied leave to amend, denied reconsideration on associational standing, and granted in part and denied in part reconsideration of an ESA claim against the NMFS; leave to amend was denied overall.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leave to amend after dismissal | WWPI seeks Rule 15(a) amendment. | Defendants invoke Rule 59(e) standards. | Denied; amendment not allowed. |
| Reconsideration of associational standing denial | Association should not be bound by member-identification rule. | Court must follow controlling precedent requiring identified members. | Reconsideration denied; standing upheld. |
| ESA claim against NMFS reconsideration | Biological Opinion/Incidental Take Statement create ESA claim. | Earlier dismissal stands absent new basis. | Reconsideration granted; ESA claim revived but must be refiled with adequate standing. |
| RFA claims and new plaintiffs | New plaintiffs cure pleading defects. | Standing defects remain; amend only with new filing. | Not ruled on here; future re-filing may address RFA claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (Rule 59(e) standard for reconsideration; intervening law/new evidence requirement)
- DeGeorge v. United States, 521 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C. 2007) (Post-dismissal leave-to-amend procedures; Ninth Circuit cited approach)
- Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Sebelius, 901 F. Supp. 2d 19 (D.D.C. 2012) (Standing at pleading stage; discussion of member identification)
- Californians for Renewable Energy v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 860 F. Supp. 2d 44 (D.D.C. 2012) (Representational standing; need identified harmed members)
- Common Cause v. Biden, 909 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 2012) (Held that plaintiff must name harmed members for standing)