Oceana, Inc. v. Ross
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:19-cv-03809
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 12
In Oceana v. Coggins, Judge Koh denied Oceana’s motion to compel, ruling that a new anchovy rule required a separate challenge on its own administrative record.
Oceana, Inc.; Wynn Coggins in her official capacity; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and the National Marine Fisheries Service.
What happened
Oceana, Inc. asked the court to enforce an earlier order that had invalidated a 2019 rule setting catch limits for central anchovy. Oceana argued that the government’s later 2020 rule did not comply with that order.
The court denied the motion. It explained that the 2020 rule resulted from a new rulemaking process, used a different administrative record, and set different catch limits. The court said Oceana had to challenge the 2020 rule in a separate case rather than use a motion to enforce the earlier order.
Judge Koh issued the order on May 5, 2021. The ruling did not decide whether the 2020 rule was lawful; it decided only that this motion was not the proper way to challenge it.
The detailed version
- Oceana, Inc. v. Ross · No. 3:19-cv-03809
- Vince Chhabria
- May 5, 2021
Background
Oceana, Inc. sued Wynn Coggins, in her official capacity, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Marine Fisheries Service. The dispute concerns federal limits on catching the central population of anchovy under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
In an earlier order, the court granted Oceana summary judgment on its challenge to the 2019 rule’s overfishing limit, acceptable biological catch, and annual catch limit. The court found that those limits were arbitrary and capricious, meaning the agency’s explanation was not adequately supported by the evidence before it. The court vacated the 2019 rule and sent it back to the agency for further action, but declined to dictate the specific contents of a replacement rule.
The National Marine Fisheries Service later issued the 2020 Catch Rule. It resulted from a new rulemaking process, relied on a new administrative record, and set different limits from the 2019 rule. Oceana also filed a new lawsuit challenging the 2020 Catch Rule.
Motion to compel
Oceana moved to compel compliance with the earlier order. It argued that the 2020 Catch Rule violated that order and asked the court to find the National Marine Fisheries Service in contempt, require another proposed and final rule, and order an amendment to the fishery management plan.
The government defendants argued that the earlier order concerned only the 2019 Catch Rule and could not be used to invalidate the 2020 Catch Rule. The court agreed. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, a court reviews an agency action using the administrative record that was before the agency when it acted. Because the 2020 Catch Rule had a different record and resulted from a different rulemaking, the court could not decide through this motion whether the 2020 rule was supported by the evidence.
The court also explained that the earlier order had remanded the 2019 Catch Rule without requiring any particular result from the agency. Invalidating the 2020 Catch Rule through enforcement proceedings would improperly expand the earlier order and dictate the substance of a new rule. The court distinguished a case in which an agency had reimplemented precisely the same rule that had previously been vacated.
Disposition
The court denied Oceana’s motion to compel. It did not rule on the merits of Oceana’s separate challenge to the 2020 Catch Rule. Judge Lucy H. Koh signed the order.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.