Center for Biological Diversity v. Strommen

Background

The Center for Biological Diversity alleged that Minnesota’s trapping regulations continued to cause Canada lynx to be injured or killed in traps set for other animals. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, referred to in the opinion as the DNR, oversees licensing and regulation of trapping but prohibits trapping Canada lynx directly.

A prior related proceeding resulted in an order requiring the DNR to apply for a federal incidental-take permit and adopt temporary trapping regulations intended to protect lynx. Nearly thirteen years later, the Fish and Wildlife Service had not acted on the DNR’s permit application. The Center alleged that the temporary regulations had become effectively permanent and that lynx continued to be taken without a permit.

The Center sought a declaration that the DNR’s policies violated the Endangered Species Act and an injunction barring the DNR from authorizing trapping that risked further lynx injuries or deaths.

Arguments on the Motion

Strommen moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim. She argued that the Center lacked standing, meaning a sufficient connection to the alleged injury to bring the lawsuit; that claim preclusion, also called res judicata, barred the case because of the prior judgment; and that the complaint did not plausibly allege an Endangered Species Act violation.

Standing

The court held that the Center plausibly alleged standing. The Center’s members were alleged to live, work, recreate, and study in areas within Minnesota’s lynx range; engage in activities including hiking, camping, wildlife watching, and photography; and value seeing lynx and the recovery of the lynx population.

The court found these allegations sufficient to plead an injury in fact—an actual or imminent harm to a legally protected interest. It also found a sufficient causal connection between the alleged injury and the DNR’s policies because the DNR regulated trapping for other animals, and traps used for those animals could injure or kill lynx. The court further found that an injunction directed at the DNR could at least partly reduce the alleged harm, even if the Fish and Wildlife Service never acted on the permit application.

Claim Preclusion

The court recognized that the current case and the prior related proceeding involved similar species and theories of liability. It also recognized that the earlier order was prospective and contemplated that the temporary regulations would bridge the period before the DNR obtained a permit.

The court nevertheless held that Strommen had not established at the pleading stage that claim preclusion barred the new case. The Fish and Wildlife Service’s failure to act on the permit application was an unforeseen change in circumstances. That inaction caused the temporary regulations to remain in effect for years and, according to the Center’s allegations, led to additional unpermitted lynx takings that were not contemplated when the earlier judgment was entered.

The court stated that the DNR could raise claim preclusion again as an affirmative defense at summary judgment if further factual development made that appropriate. It also held that the Center was not required to seek relief through a motion to modify the earlier judgment before filing this new action.

Adequacy of the Endangered Species Act Claim

The court held that the Center plausibly stated a claim for declaratory and injunctive relief. The complaint identified fifteen instances in Minnesota between December 2009 and November 2018 in which traps harmed or killed lynx. At least ten involved traps that complied with DNR regulations, and the complaint alleged that some takings might have gone unreported.

Considering the allegations in the Center’s favor, the court found it reasonable to infer that the DNR’s ongoing trapping policies were likely to result in additional lynx takings. The court did not decide at this stage whether the DNR ultimately violated the Endangered Species Act.

Disposition

The court denied Sarah Strommen’s Motion to Dismiss. The opinion does not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice.