Sierra Forest Legacy v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Background

The plaintiffs—Sierra Forest Legacy, a project of the Tides Center; Defenders of Wildlife; and Center for Biological Diversity—challenge the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s November 8, 2019, 12-month finding that listing the California spotted owl as an endangered or threatened species was not warranted. They brought two claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, challenging the Service’s conclusions about the owl’s status throughout its range and throughout any significant portion of its range. The defendants are the Service, David Bernhardt in his capacity as Secretary of the Interior, and Aurelia Skipwith in her capacity as Director of the Service.

Motion to Transfer Venue

The defendants sought transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) from the Northern District of California to the Eastern District of California. The court determined that the action could have been brought in the Eastern District because the substantive work leading to the challenged finding occurred there. The defendants nevertheless had to show that the Eastern District was the more appropriate forum.

The court found that many transfer factors were neutral or did not apply. It gave substantial weight to the plaintiffs’ choice of the Northern District because the plaintiffs showed significant connections to that district and because the California spotted owl occurs there, including in Monterey County. The court also considered prior related litigation in the Northern District as an operative fact. Although the Eastern District had a stronger local interest because the challenged decision was made there and a greater portion of the owl’s range was there, the court found that the Eastern District’s greater court congestion weighed against transfer. The local-interest factor alone did not overcome the other factors.

The defendants’ motion to transfer venue was DENIED.

Motion to Intervene

CORE moved to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), or alternatively for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b). Intervention allows a nonparty to join an existing case. The court found that CORE satisfied the requirements for intervention as of right: its members own or operate land within the California spotted owl’s range; a decision vacating the Service’s finding could lead to new land-use restrictions; the motion was timely; and the existing parties might not fully represent CORE’s interests.

CORE’s motion to intervene was GRANTED. CORE was required to follow the court’s case schedule, attend the June 10, 2021 case-management conference, and share briefing page limits with the other defendants. The court stated that CORE and the named defendants could file separate briefs but would be subject to the combined page limits for matters such as summary judgment.

Disposition and Scope

The order resolved only the venue and intervention motions. It did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ challenge to the Service’s California spotted owl finding.