FRIENDS OF ANIMALS, Plaintiff, v. Scott PRUITT, in his official capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 16-1503 (ABJ)
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
Signed 06/29/2017
Second, the Court notes that its ruling pertains only to the government‘s case in chief. If the Defendant were himself to open the door in some way that would make the non-hearsay purpose for the proffered patient testimony relevant—such as presenting evidence or argument that Defendant‘s patients chose to visit his practice for other reasons—the testimony may become admissible. Under these circumstances, the probative value of testimony that the patients in fact had other motivations would become significantly probative. See United States v. Johnson, 730 F.2d 683, 691 (11th Cir. 1984) (holding that trial court properly ruled that “once defense counsel ‘opened the door’ on cross-examination,” evidence‘s “probative value was enhanced such that it outweighed its prejudicial effect.“). If the government contends that this has occurred, it must come to the Court in advance of presenting this evidence and request permission.
Finally, the Court notes that in its opposition, the government describes certain testimony it seeks to elicit that is not hearsay and that is not otherwise subject to exclusion. First, the government represents that witnesses will testify about certain things Defendant told them—e.g., that they should procure a money order before coming to his practice, and that he would not accept insurance. Gov.‘s Opp‘n at 8. Such statements of the Defendant are relevant, not subject to exclusion under Rule 403, and not hearsay. Second, the government represents that witnesses will testify as to where they lived and, accordingly, how far they travelled to see the Defendant. The Court cannot say at this preliminary stage that this information has no relevance at all to any issue in this case, and asking a witness where he or she came from to visit the Defendant presents absolutely no risk of unfair prejudice. The Court will not exclude such testimony.
II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART Defendant‘s [72] Motion in Limine No. 7 to Exclude All Testimony About the Alleged Reputation of Ivan Robinson and His Practice. Accordingly, it is, this 28th day of June, 2017, hereby
ORDERED that to the extent the government seeks to elicit testimony about Defendant‘s patients’ motivation for visiting Defendant‘s practice, it must do so in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. The Court‘s rulings are based only on the present record.
SO ORDERED.
Michael Ray Harris, Friends of Animals, Centennial, CO, for Plaintiff.
Sue Chen, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
AMY BERMAN JACKSON, United States District Judge
Plaintiff Friends of Animals originally filed this action on July 22, 2016 against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA“) and Scott Pruitt in his official capacity as EPA Administrator,1 alleging that defendants unreasonably delayed in responding to a May 19, 2015 rulemaking petition regarding the review and potential cancellation of the registration of ZonaStat-H, a pesticide used to
On October 18, 2016, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion to stay all proceedings while they engaged in settlement discussions. Min. Order (Oct. 18, 2016). Then, on January 17, 2017, the parties jointly reported that the EPA had issued a final decision denying plaintiff‘s petition. See Joint Status Report [Dkt. # 11] ¶¶ 4-5. The Court then ordered plaintiff to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed as moot. Min. Order (Jan. 17, 2017). In response to the Court‘s order, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, but it did not attach a copy of its proposed amended pleading. See Pl.‘s Resp. to Jan. 17, 2017 Min. Order & Mot. for Leave to File Am. & Suppl. Compl. [Dkt. # 13] (“Pl.‘s Mot.“).
Plaintiff stated that the amended pleading it intended to file would allege that the denial of the rulemaking petition was “arbitrary, capricious, contrary to underlying law, and an abuse of discretion,” in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Pl.‘s Mot. at 2. On February 1, 2017, defendants opposed plaintiff‘s motion for leave to amend and filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the mootness of the original complaint. Defs.’ Combined Opp. to Pl.‘s Mot. & Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. # 14] (“Defs.’ Mot.“) at 1. Plaintiff does not dispute that defendants’ response to the rulemaking petition renders the original complaint moot, but it argues that the Court should allow plaintiff to amend the complaint to challenge the agency‘s response to its petition. Pl.‘s Reply in Supp. of Mot. for Leave to File Am. and Supp. Compl. (“Pl.‘s Reply“) at 1-2.
The Court will deny plaintiff‘s motion for leave to file an amended and supplemental complaint because it fails to comply with the procedural requirements of Local Civil Rule 7(i). “A motion for leave to file an amended pleading shall be accompanied by an original of the proposed pleading as amended.” LCVR 7(i). The Court of Appeals has repeatedly “faulted litigants for [the] shortcoming” of failing to attach a copy of their proposed amended complaint to a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, Schmidt v. United States, 749 F.3d 1064, 1069 (D.C. Cir. 2014), citing Rollins v. Wackenhut Servs., Inc., 703 F.2d 122, 130-31 (D.C. Cir. 2012), and it noted in Schmidt that failure to attach a copy of a proposed amended complaint is a reason to deny a motion for leave to amend. Id. Here, plaintiff has failed to attach a proposed amended complaint to its motion for leave to file an amended complaint and the motion to amend the complaint will be denied.
The Court will also grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss the existing complaint as moot. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and the law presumes that “a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994); see also Gen. Motors Corp. v. E.P.A., 363 F.3d 442, 448 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“As a court of limited jurisdiction, we begin, and end, with an examination of our jurisdiction.“). “[B]ecause subject-matter jurisdiction is ‘an Art[icle] III as well as a statutory requirement . . . no action of the parties can confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon a federal court.‘” Akinseye v. District of Columbia, 339 F.3d 970, 971 (D.C. Cir. 2003), quoting Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982).
Article III, section 2 of the Constitution permits federal courts to adjudicate only “actual, ongoing controversies.” Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 317, 108 S.Ct. 592, 98 L.Ed.2d 686 (1988), citing Neb. Press Ass‘n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 546, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 49 L.Ed.2d 683 (1976); Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401, 95 S.Ct. 2330, 45 L.Ed.2d 272 (1975). “This limitation gives rise to the doctrines of standing and mootness.” Foretich v. United States, 351 F.3d 1198, 1210 (D.C. Cir. 2003). A case becomes moot when “the court can provide no effective remedy because a party has already ‘obtained all the relief that [it has] sought.‘” Conservation Force, Inc. v. Jewell, 733 F.3d 1200, 1204 (D.C. Cir. 2013), quoting Monzillo v. Biller, 735 F.2d 1456, 1459 (D.C. Cir. 1984). “Federal courts lack jurisdiction to decide moot cases because their constitutional authority extends only to actual cases or controversies.” Id., quoting Iron Arrow Honor Soc‘y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70, 104 S.Ct. 373, 78 L.Ed.2d 58 (1983).
Here, plaintiff concedes that the claim in the original complaint is moot. Pl.‘s Reply at 1. Plaintiff sought a court order declaring defendants in violation of the APA for unreasonably failing to respond to plaintiff‘s petition, and an order requiring defendants to make a final decision on the petition, Compl. at 11, and it has received that relief because defendants have responded to the petition. Because the claims in the original complaint are moot, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case, and plaintiff will be required to file a new civil action if it wishes to challenge the merits of the agency‘s final decision.
Therefore, pursuant to
ORDERED that plaintiff‘s motion for leave to file an amended and supplemental complaint [Dkt # 13] is DENIED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss [Dkt. # 15] is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
AMY BERMAN JACKSON
United States District Judge