Aland v. U.S. Department of the Interior

N.D. California

Aland v. U.S. Department of the Interior

DecidedMay 16, 2022

Docket4:22-cv-01321

StatusUnknown

This text of Aland v. U.S. Department of the Interior (Aland v. U.S. Department of the Interior) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aland v. U.S. Department of the Interior, (N.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ROBERT H. ALAND, Case No. 22-cv-01321-JSW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. STAY AND DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE 10 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 30, 34 11 Defendants.

12 13 Now before the Court for consideration is the motion to stay filed by Federal Defendants 14 and the motion to compel filed by Plaintiff Robert H. Aland (“Aland” or “Plaintiff”). The Court 15 has considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in the case, and it finds 16 these matters suitable for disposition without oral argument. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The 17 Court VACATES the hearings scheduled for May 27, 2022. For the following reasons, the Court 18 GRANTS the Federal Defendants’ motion to stay and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel. 19 BACKGROUND 20 Aland filed this suit seeking review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (“FWS”) rule 21 that removed ESA protection for gray wolves across much of the lower forty-eight states. See 22 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the 23 List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 85 Fed. Reg. 69,778 (Nov. 3, 2020) (“2020 Rule”). 24 Aland alleges that the Service: (1) failed to meet a 12-month deadline to publish the 2020 Rule 25 and (2) improperly considered political factors in promulgating the 2020 Rule. Plaintiff asks the 26 Court to declare unlawful and vacate the 2020 Rule. 27 Although Aland’s case presents some unique issues, his claims overlap with those litigated 1 WildEarth Guardians v. Haaland, 4:21-cv-349-JSW, and Nat. Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Dep’t of 2 the Interior, 4:21-cv-561-JSW (the “Related Cases”). In February 2022, this Court granted in part 3 the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment in the Related Cases and vacated the 2020 Rule. 4 The Federal Defendants and intervenor-defendants in the Related Cases appealed this Court’s 5 Judgment in the Related Cases to the Ninth Circuit, and the appeals are pending. Aland also 6 challenges the 2020 Rule, which is not currently in effect because of this Court’s ruling in the 7 Related Cases. 8 Aland notified FWS of his intent to file suit challenging the 2020 Rule in November 2020, 9 and on October 27, 2021, he filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶ 10 7.) The Northern District of Illinois transferred the case to this Court on February 15, 2022. (Dkt. 11 No. 18.) On March 25, 2022, Plaintiff moved to compel production of the administrative record. 12 (Dkt. No. 30.) On April 15, 2022, the Federal Defendants moved to stay this action pending 13 resolution of the appeals in the Related Cases. (Dkt. No. 34.) 14 ANALYSIS 15 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 16 control disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 17 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). However, “[t]he 18 exertion of [the stay] power calls for the exercise of sound discretion.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 19 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). The competing interests that a district court must weigh in 20 exercising this discretion include: (1) “the possible damage which may result from the granting of 21 a stay,” (2) “the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward,” 22 and (3) “the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of 23 issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” Id. at 265 24 (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55). 25 A district court “may . . . enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of 26 independent proceedings which bear upon the case,” but the separate proceeding need not be 27 “controlling of the action before the court.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 1 damage to some one [sic] else,’ the stay may be inappropriate absent a showing by the moving 2 party of ‘hardship or inequity.’” Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 3 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Landis, 299 U.S. at 256). The movant has the burden of 4 showing that a stay is appropriate. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997). 5 First, the Court examines the possible damage to Plaintiff from granting a stay. Aland 6 brings this lawsuit challenging the 2020 Rule and seeking its vacatur. However, the 2020 Rule is 7 vacated and will remain so during appellate review of the Related Cases. Aland does not dispute 8 this is the case. Although the rule he seeks to vacate is not currently in effect, Aland contends a 9 stay will nevertheless prejudice him because postponing a decision in this action could potentially 10 lead to a “time gap between the Ninth Circuit’s decision and this Court’s decision in this case 11 during which time the slaughter of wolves likely would resume.” (Opp’n at 3.) This argument is 12 speculative and presupposes that the outcome of the appeal will reinstate the 2020 Rule. 13 However, it is impossible to say what might happen on appeal. Plaintiff has not shown an urgent 14 need to litigate this matter, and Plaintiff will not suffer harm if a stay is granted. The Court 15 concludes the first factor weighs in favor of a stay. 16 Second, the Court examines the “hardship or inequity” the Federal Defendants may face in 17 being required to go forward. “[B]eing required to defend a suit, without more, does not constitute 18 a ‘clear case of hardship or inequity’ within the meaning of Landis.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 19 398 F.3d 1098, 1112 (9th Cir. 2005). However, there is more at stake here than the hardship of 20 mounting a defense to the present claims. Litigating this case before a decision in the Related 21 Cases would risk hardship and inequity on the Federal Defendants because the entire action could 22 be rendered moot by the Ninth Circuit’s decision. At the very least, if the Court proceeds without 23 a stay, it may have to reconsider issues in this matter once the appeals are resolved. This case is in 24 its early stages, and the Ninth Circuit’s decision in the Related Cases will significantly impact this 25 case. In light of these considerations and the risk of unnecessary proceedings and expenses if the 26 case proceeds, the Court finds the second factor weighs in favor of a stay. 27 Finally, the third factor assesses whether a stay will promote the “orderly course of ] promote the orderly course of justice by simplifying the issues in this case. The Court agrees. 2 || The Ninth Circuit’s rulings on appeal will inform resolution of Plaintiffs claims. If the Ninth 3 Circuit affirms this Court’s Judgment or the pending appeals are dismissed, Plaintiffs claims 4 would be moot. See Aland v. Salazar, No. 1:08-cv-00024-EJL, 2012 WL 12985149, at *1 (D. 5 || Idaho Mar. 23, 2012) (dismissing case as moot where appellate court in other proceeding vacated 6 || the challenged delisting rule). Plaintiff contends that affirmance would not eliminate the need for 7 || further proceedings in this case his “unique issues” will need “to be resolved by this Court to give 8 complete relief,” but he does not explain what such relief would be. (Opp’n at 5.) Although the 9 || present case presents claims that are not expressly raised in the Related Cases, the Ninth Circuit’s 10 || rulings will be relevant to the resolution of Plaintiff's claims.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ROBERT H. ALAND, Case No. 22-cv-01321-JSW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. STAY AND DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE 10 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 30, 34 11 Defendants.

12 13 Now before the Court for consideration is the motion to stay filed by Federal Defendants 14 and the motion to compel filed by Plaintiff Robert H. Aland (“Aland” or “Plaintiff”). The Court 15 has considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in the case, and it finds 16 these matters suitable for disposition without oral argument. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The 17 Court VACATES the hearings scheduled for May 27, 2022. For the following reasons, the Court 18 GRANTS the Federal Defendants’ motion to stay and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel. 19 BACKGROUND 20 Aland filed this suit seeking review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (“FWS”) rule 21 that removed ESA protection for gray wolves across much of the lower forty-eight states. See 22 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the 23 List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 85 Fed. Reg. 69,778 (Nov. 3, 2020) (“2020 Rule”). 24 Aland alleges that the Service: (1) failed to meet a 12-month deadline to publish the 2020 Rule 25 and (2) improperly considered political factors in promulgating the 2020 Rule. Plaintiff asks the 26 Court to declare unlawful and vacate the 2020 Rule. 27 Although Aland’s case presents some unique issues, his claims overlap with those litigated 1 WildEarth Guardians v. Haaland, 4:21-cv-349-JSW, and Nat. Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Dep’t of 2 the Interior, 4:21-cv-561-JSW (the “Related Cases”). In February 2022, this Court granted in part 3 the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment in the Related Cases and vacated the 2020 Rule. 4 The Federal Defendants and intervenor-defendants in the Related Cases appealed this Court’s 5 Judgment in the Related Cases to the Ninth Circuit, and the appeals are pending. Aland also 6 challenges the 2020 Rule, which is not currently in effect because of this Court’s ruling in the 7 Related Cases. 8 Aland notified FWS of his intent to file suit challenging the 2020 Rule in November 2020, 9 and on October 27, 2021, he filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶ 10 7.) The Northern District of Illinois transferred the case to this Court on February 15, 2022. (Dkt. 11 No. 18.) On March 25, 2022, Plaintiff moved to compel production of the administrative record. 12 (Dkt. No. 30.) On April 15, 2022, the Federal Defendants moved to stay this action pending 13 resolution of the appeals in the Related Cases. (Dkt. No. 34.) 14 ANALYSIS 15 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 16 control disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 17 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). However, “[t]he 18 exertion of [the stay] power calls for the exercise of sound discretion.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 19 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). The competing interests that a district court must weigh in 20 exercising this discretion include: (1) “the possible damage which may result from the granting of 21 a stay,” (2) “the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward,” 22 and (3) “the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of 23 issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” Id. at 265 24 (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55). 25 A district court “may . . . enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of 26 independent proceedings which bear upon the case,” but the separate proceeding need not be 27 “controlling of the action before the court.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 1 damage to some one [sic] else,’ the stay may be inappropriate absent a showing by the moving 2 party of ‘hardship or inequity.’” Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 3 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Landis, 299 U.S. at 256). The movant has the burden of 4 showing that a stay is appropriate. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997). 5 First, the Court examines the possible damage to Plaintiff from granting a stay. Aland 6 brings this lawsuit challenging the 2020 Rule and seeking its vacatur. However, the 2020 Rule is 7 vacated and will remain so during appellate review of the Related Cases. Aland does not dispute 8 this is the case. Although the rule he seeks to vacate is not currently in effect, Aland contends a 9 stay will nevertheless prejudice him because postponing a decision in this action could potentially 10 lead to a “time gap between the Ninth Circuit’s decision and this Court’s decision in this case 11 during which time the slaughter of wolves likely would resume.” (Opp’n at 3.) This argument is 12 speculative and presupposes that the outcome of the appeal will reinstate the 2020 Rule. 13 However, it is impossible to say what might happen on appeal. Plaintiff has not shown an urgent 14 need to litigate this matter, and Plaintiff will not suffer harm if a stay is granted. The Court 15 concludes the first factor weighs in favor of a stay. 16 Second, the Court examines the “hardship or inequity” the Federal Defendants may face in 17 being required to go forward. “[B]eing required to defend a suit, without more, does not constitute 18 a ‘clear case of hardship or inequity’ within the meaning of Landis.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 19 398 F.3d 1098, 1112 (9th Cir. 2005). However, there is more at stake here than the hardship of 20 mounting a defense to the present claims. Litigating this case before a decision in the Related 21 Cases would risk hardship and inequity on the Federal Defendants because the entire action could 22 be rendered moot by the Ninth Circuit’s decision. At the very least, if the Court proceeds without 23 a stay, it may have to reconsider issues in this matter once the appeals are resolved. This case is in 24 its early stages, and the Ninth Circuit’s decision in the Related Cases will significantly impact this 25 case. In light of these considerations and the risk of unnecessary proceedings and expenses if the 26 case proceeds, the Court finds the second factor weighs in favor of a stay. 27 Finally, the third factor assesses whether a stay will promote the “orderly course of ] promote the orderly course of justice by simplifying the issues in this case. The Court agrees. 2 || The Ninth Circuit’s rulings on appeal will inform resolution of Plaintiffs claims. If the Ninth 3 Circuit affirms this Court’s Judgment or the pending appeals are dismissed, Plaintiffs claims 4 would be moot. See Aland v. Salazar, No. 1:08-cv-00024-EJL, 2012 WL 12985149, at *1 (D. 5 || Idaho Mar. 23, 2012) (dismissing case as moot where appellate court in other proceeding vacated 6 || the challenged delisting rule). Plaintiff contends that affirmance would not eliminate the need for 7 || further proceedings in this case his “unique issues” will need “to be resolved by this Court to give 8 complete relief,” but he does not explain what such relief would be. (Opp’n at 5.) Although the 9 || present case presents claims that are not expressly raised in the Related Cases, the Ninth Circuit’s 10 || rulings will be relevant to the resolution of Plaintiff's claims. The Ninth Circuit will almost 11 certainly address the nature and adequacy of FWS’s decision, which will impact the Court’s 12 || analysis of Plaintiffs political interference claim. Thus, the Court would expend unnecessary E 13 || resources litigating Plaintiff's claims now when a binding decision from the Ninth Circuit could 14 || later require the Court to revisit its rulings. Because a stay is likely to simplify the issues in this 3 15 case and prevent the parties and the Court from wasting resources, the third factor weighs in favor 16 || ofastay. i 17 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to stay this case pending the Ninth Circuit’s Z 18 || resolution of the Related Cases. 19 CONCLUSION 20 The Court GRANTS the Federal Defendants’ motion to stay this case and HEREBY 21 STAYS this litigation pending resolution of the appeals in the Related Cases. The parties shall file 22 || notice with this Court no later than ten (10) days after the Ninth Circuit’s decision. In light of 23 || the stay, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion to compel the administrative record WITHOUT 24 || PREJUDICE to renewal once the stay is lifted. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 26 || Dated: May 16, 2022 C / LL □□ ofhey 5M 3g JEPFREY/S\ WHE United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Aland v. U.S. Department of the Interior, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aland-v-us-department-of-the-interior-cand-2022.