CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY et al v. JACKSON et al
| CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, PROJECT GUTPILE and PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY |
| LISA P. JACKSON and UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY |
| NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA and SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL |
| 1:2010cv02007 |
| November 23, 2010 |
| US District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Washington, DC Office |
| 88888 |
| Emmet G Sullivan |
| Environmental Matters |
| 33 U.S.C. § 1365 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 30, 2012. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 52
ORDER granting #44 plaintiffs' Motion for Voluntary Dismissal and denying #43 intervenor-defendant ABR's Motion to Hold in Abeyance. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 30, 2012. (lcegs6)
|
| Filing 51 NOTICE by ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, LISA P. JACKSON (Fleisher, Madeline) |
| Filing 50 REPLY to opposition to motion re #44 MOTION to Dismiss Voluntarily filed by CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, PROJECT GUTPILE, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY. (Keats, Adam) |
| Filing 49 REPLY to opposition to motion re #43 MOTION to Hold in Abeyance filed by ASSOCIATION OF BATTERY RECYCLERS, INC.. (Snarr, Michael) |
| NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Document No. re #48 Surreply was entered in error and counsel was instructed to refile said pleading under the correct event. (jf, ) |
| Filing 48 ENTERED IN ERROR.....SURREPLY to re #43 MOTION to Hold in Abeyance filed by ASSOCIATION OF BATTERY RECYCLERS, INC.. (Snarr, Michael) Modified on 4/5/2012 (jf, ). |
| Filing 47 RESPONSE re #44 MOTION to Dismiss Voluntarily - Opposition to Motion for Voluntary Dismissal filed by ASSOCIATION OF BATTERY RECYCLERS, INC.. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Snarr, Michael) |
| Filing 46 Memorandum in opposition to re #43 MOTION to Hold in Abeyance filed by CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, PROJECT GUTPILE, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Keats, Adam) |
| Filing 45 STATUS REPORT by ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, LISA P. JACKSON. (Fleisher, Madeline) |
| Filing 44 MOTION to Dismiss Voluntarily by CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, PROJECT GUTPILE, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 in Support of Motion for Voluntary Dismissal, #2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 in Support of Motion for Voluntary Dismissal, #3 Text of Proposed Order)(Keats, Adam) |
| Filing 43 MOTION to Hold in Abeyance by ASSOCIATION OF BATTERY RECYCLERS, INC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Text of Proposed Order)(Snarr, Michael) |
| Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 3/15/2012 (clv, ) |
| Filing 41 RESPONSE to Defendant EPA's #42 Response to the Court's Order of December 12, 2011 filed by ASSOCIATION OF BATTERY RECYCLERS, INC.. (Snarr, Michael). |
| NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Document No. re #39 Status Report was entered in error and refiled by the Clerk's Office under the correct event.(See Docket Entry #42 to view document) (jf, ) |
|
MINUTE ORDER granting #40 the parties' joint motion for extension of time. The parties shall file a joint status report, including a recommendation for further proceedings, by no later than March 15, 2012. In the event that counsel are unable to agree on a joint recommendation, each party shall file an individual recommendation by that time. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 1, 2012. (lcegs6)
|
| Filing 42 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Minute Order on Motion to Hold in Abeyance, filed by ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, LISA P. JACKSON. (jf, ) |
| Filing 40 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Recommendations for Further Proceedings by CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, PROJECT GUTPILE, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY (Keats, Adam) |
| Filing 39 ENTERED IN ERROR.....STATUS REPORT in Response to Court's Order of December 12, 2011 by ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, LISA P. JACKSON. (Fleisher, Madeline) Modified on 3/1/2012 (jf, ). |
| Case Stayed until 2/15/12;, Status Report due by 2/29/2012 (clv, ) |
| Filing 38 Joint MOTION to Hold in Abeyance by ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, LISA P. JACKSON (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Text of Proposed Order)(Fleisher, Madeline) |
|
MINUTE ORDER granting #38 Joint Motion to Hold in Abeyance. Accordingly, all further proceedings in this action are hereby STAYED until February 15, 2012. The parties shall file a joint recommendation for further proceedings by no later than February 29, 2012. In the event that counsel are unable to agree on a joint recommendation, each party shall file an individual recommendation by that time. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 12, 2011. (lcegs6)
|
| Filing 37 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Recommendations for Further Proceedings by ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Fleisher, Madeline) |
| Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 12/15/2011 (clv, ) |
|
MINUTE ORDER granting #37 joint motion for extension of time to file recommendations for further proceedings. The parties shall file a joint recommendation for further proceedings by no later than December 15, 2011. In the event that counsel are unable to agree on a joint recommendation, each party shall file an individual recommendation by that time. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 28, 2011. (lcegs6)
|
| Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint recommendation for further proceedings due by 10/31/2011 (clv, ) |
| Filing 36 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 29, 2011. (lcegs6) |
|
Filing 35
ORDER granting #22 and #23 Partial Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 29, 2011. (lcegs6)
|
| Filing 34 LCvR 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests NONE by SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL. (jf, ) |
| Filing 33 ANSWER to #1 Complaint, by NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL.(jf, ) |
|
MINUTE ORDER. Pending before the Court is a contested motion to intervene as of right or, in the alternative, for permissive intervention filed by the National Rifle Association of America and Safari Club International (collectively, "NRA/SCI"). "NRA and SCI are organizations that promote and protect hunting and shooting sports and outdoor recreational activities." NRA/SCI Mot. at 1. NRA/SCI "collectively represents millions of Americans who use lead-based ammunition and fishing tackle for recreational activities, as part of their employment, and/or for self-defense." NRA/SCI Mot. at 1; see also NRA/SCI Mot. at 6-12 and Declarations cited therein. Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that upon timely motion a party shall be permitted to intervene as a matter of right when the movant "claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest." In addition to satisfying the requirements of Rule 24(a)(2), a party seeking to intervene as of right must demonstrate that it has standing under Article III of the Constitution. Fund for Animals v. Norton, 322 F.3d 728, 731-32 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (to establish standing a prospective intervenor must demonstrate a concrete and imminent injury that is fairly traceable to the regulatory action and that is redressable by a favorable decision of the court). Plaintiffs oppose intervention of NRA/SCI both as of right and permissively, arguing that the prospective intervenors "have failed to meet their minimum burden to demonstrate that the existing parties will inadequately represent their interests" and that "the issues [NRA/SCI] seek to interject in this case will only delay litigation and result in prejudice to the original parties." Pls.' Opp'n at 2. For the following reasons, and largely for the reasons given by the prospective intervenors, the Court concludes that NRA/SCI are entitled to intervene in this matter as of right. First, no party contests that NRA/SCI's motion was timely filed, as it was filed before the federal defendants responded to the complaint. Second, the Court concludes that NRA/SCI has standing to intervene on behalf of its members. See Hunt v. Washington State Apple Adver. Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977) (setting out the standard for associational standing). Specifically, the Court finds that NRA/SCI has demonstrated that their members would have standing in their own right because NRA/SCI members use lead-based ammunition and lead-based fishing gear for their hunting, shooting and fishing activities, and their ability to use those items would be significantly impaired if plaintiffs are successful in obtaining the regulations they seek. NRA and SCI members, therefore, have "an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2); see also Fund for Animals, 322 F.3d at 735 (demonstration of standing is sufficient to establish an interest in the subject matter of the litigation). Third, NRA/SCI has demonstrated that the disposition of this action "may as a practical matter impair or impede [their] ability to protect [their] interest[s]." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). NRA/SCI and their members currently benefit from the agency's determination that it has no authority to regulate lead ammunition and fishing sinkers. Plaintiffs have asked this Court to order EPA to develop and implement regulations for lead shots, bullets, and fishing sinkers under the Toxic Substances Control Act because these items present an "unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment." Compl. 7. If the Court were to grant plaintiffs' requested relief, the ability of NRA and SCI members to participate in hunting, shooting, and fishing would be impeded as they would be "forced to abandon hunting and shooting with some of their firearms" and would be "deprived of [their] choice of ammunition and fishing gear." NRA/SCI Mot. at 16; see also NRA/SCI Mot. at 16 (discussing the "chilling effect" that plaintiffs' proposed regulations would have on the hunting and fishing community, and explaining how the regulations would result in "reduced funds for wildlife and habitat conservation"). The Court therefore finds that plaintiffs' requested relief, if granted, would impair the protectable interests of NRA/SCI and their members. This leaves only the question of whether NRA/SCI's interest is "adequately represented by existing parties." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). "The Supreme Court has held that this 'requirement of the Rule is satisfied if the applicant shows that representation of his interest may be inadequate; and the burden of making that showing should be treated as minimal.'" Fund for Animals, 322 F.3d at 735 (citing Trbovich v. United Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528, 538 n.10 (1972)). Despite plaintiffs' protestations to the contrary, the Court finds that the rights of NRA/SCI members "to cast their bullets and fishing sinkers" is not adequately represented by "existing defendant-intervenors who manufacture, process, distribute, use and dispose of lead shot, bullets, and sinkers." Pls.' Opp'n at 5. Specifically, the Court is persuaded that "the interests of those who are involved in the production of a product are not necessarily the same as those of the end user of that product." NRA/SCI Mot. at 20-21; see also NRA/SCI Reply at 2-9. Nor are the rights of NRA/SCI members adequately represented by the federal defendants. See Fund for Animals, 322 F.3d at 736-37 (noting that the D.C. Circuit has often concluded that governmental entities do not adequately represent the interests of prospective intervenors). Accordingly, the Court finds that NRA/SCI are entitled to intervene as of right, and it is hereby ORDERED that #20 the motion of the National Rifle Association of America and Safari Club International to intervene as defendants pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file [20-12] the Proposed Answer attached to NRA/SCI's motion to intervene. Finally, the Court declines to adopt plaintiffs' recommendation to limit the scope of NRA/SCI's participation in this litigation at this time; however, the Court may direct joint or coordinated briefing as appropriate. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 28, 2011. (lcegs1)
|
| Filing 32 REPLY to opposition to motion re #22 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, LISA P. JACKSON. (Fleisher, Madeline) |
| Filing 31 REPLY to opposition to motion re #23 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, #22 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by ASSOCIATION OF BATTERY RECYCLERS, INC.. (Snarr, Michael) |
| Filing 30 LCvR 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by ASSOCIATION OF BATTERY RECYCLERS, INC. (Snarr, Michael) |
| Filing 29 REPLY to opposition to motion re #23 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION, INC.. (Martella, Roger) |
| Filing 28 REPLY to opposition to motion re #20 MOTION to Intervene filed by NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL. (Seidman, Anna) |
| Filing 27 Memorandum in opposition to re #23 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, #22 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, PROJECT GUTPILE, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Keats, Adam) |
| Filing 26 Memorandum in opposition to re #20 MOTION to Intervene filed by CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, PROJECT GUTPILE, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lopez, Jaclyn) |
| Filing 25 LCvR 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION, INC. (Martella, Roger) |
| Filing 24 Partial ANSWER to #1 Complaint, by NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION, INC..(Martella, Roger) |
| Filing 23 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION, INC. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support, #2 Exhibit Ex. 1 - EPA Denial Letter, #3 Exhibit Ex. 2 - EPA Press Release, #4 Exhibit Ex. 3 - Plaintiffs' Press Release 8.27.10, #5 Exhibit Ex. 3 - Plaintiffs' Press Release 9.9.10, #6 Text of Proposed Order)(Martella, Roger) |
| Filing 22 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, LISA P. JACKSON (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order, #2 Exhibit Ex. 1 - Lead Petition, #3 Exhibit Ex. 2 - EPA Letter 8.27.2010, #4 Exhibit Ex. 3 - EPA Letter 11.4.2010, #5 Exhibit Ex. 4 - EPA Lead Wheel Balancing Weights Letter, #6 Exhibit Ex. 5 - EPA Delegations Manual, #7 Exhibit Ex. 6 - EPA Manufacturer Reporting Form)(Fleisher, Madeline) |
| Filing 21 Partial ANSWER to #1 Complaint, by ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, LISA P. JACKSON.(Fleisher, Madeline) |
| Filing 20 MOTION to Intervene as Defendants by NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G, #8 Exhibit H, #9 Exhibit I, #10 Exhibit J, #11 Text of Proposed Order, #12 Proposed Answer, #13 NRA Certificate of Disclosure, #14 SCI Certificate of Disclosure)(znmw, ) |
| Filing 19 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael Steven Snarr on behalf of ASSOCIATION OF BATTERY RECYCLERS, INC. (Snarr, Michael) |
| Filing 18 NOTICE of Change of Address by Robert N. Steinwurtzel (Steinwurtzel, Robert) |
| Filing 17 ANSWER to #1 Complaint, by ASSOCIATION OF BATTERY RECYCLERS, INC..(jf, ) |
|
MINUTE ORDER. On November 23, 2010, plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, and Project Gutpile (collectively, "plaintiffs") filed a complaint challenging the decision of the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to deny plaintiffs' petition to regulate lead shot, bullets, and fishing sinkers under the Toxic Substances Control Act ("TSCA"). Pending before the Court is a contested motion to intervene as of right or, in the alternative, for permissive intervention filed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. ("NSSF"). NSSF is a non-profit corporation with a primary mission of promoting, protecting, and preserving hunting and the shooting sports. Declaration of Lawrence G. Keane 3, Docket No. 5-2 ("Keane Decl."). NSSF members manufacture, distribute, sell, and use traditional ammunition made with lead components. Keane Decl. 5. Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that upon timely motion a party shall be permitted to intervene as a matter of right when the movant "claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest." In addition, a party seeking to intervene as of right must demonstrate that it has standing under Article III of the Constitution. Fund for Animals v. Norton, 322 F.3d 728, 731-32 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (to establish standing a prospective intervenor must demonstrate a concrete and imminent injury that is fairly traceable to the regulatory action and that is redressable by a favorable decision of the court). For the following reasons, and largely for the reasons given by the prospective intervenor, the Court finds that NSSF has satisfied these criteria and thus is entitled to intervene in this matter as of right. First, no party contests that NSSF's motion was timely filed, as the federal defendants have not yet responded to the complaint. Second, the Court concludes that NSSF has standing to intervene on behalf of its members. See Hunt v. Washington State Apple Adver. Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977) (setting out the standard for associational standing). Particularly, NSSF has demonstrated that its members would have standing in their own right because the product that they manufacture, distribute, sell, and use is the object of the particular regulation that plaintiff seeks. Fund for Animals, 322 F.3d at 733-34 (if the prospective intervenor's property is "an object of the action (or foregone action) at issue" there should be "little question that the action or inaction has caused him injury, and that a judgment preventing or requiring the action will redress it" (citation omitted)). A demonstration of standing is also sufficient to establish "an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2); Fund for Animals, 322 F.3d at 735. Third, NSSF has demonstrated that the disposition of this action "may as a practical matter impair or impede [its] ability to protect [its] interests." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). NSSF members currently benefit from the agency's determination that it has no authority to regulate lead ammunition. Plaintiffs have asked this Court to order EPA to develop and implement regulations for lead shot and bullets under TSCA because these items present an "unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment." Compl. 7. If the Court were to grant plaintiffs' requested relief, the "task of reestablishing the status quo... will be difficult and burdensome." Fund for Animals, 322 F.2d at 735. The opportunity to participate in subsequent rulemaking procedures is an inadequate substitute. Finally, NSSF has demonstrated that the federal defendants cannot adequately represent the business interests of NSSF's members, even if they share the same interest in upholding the EPA's denial of plaintiffs' petition. See Fund for Animals, 322 F.3d at 736-37 (noting that the D.C. Circuit has often concluded that governmental entities do not adequately represent the interests of prospective intervenors on similar grounds). Accordingly, this Court finds that NSSF is entitled to intervene as of right, and it is hereby ORDERED that #5 the motion of National Shooting Sports Foundation to intervene as a defendant pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is GRANTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that defendant intervenor NSSF shall respond to the complaint on or before the date on which the federal defendants are required to respond. The Court declines to adopt plaintiffs' recommendation to limit the scope of NSSF's participation in this litigation at this time; however, the Court may direct joint or coordinated briefing as appropriate. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 18, 2011. (lcegs5)
|
|
MINUTE ORDER. On November 23, 2010, plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, and Project Gutpile (collectively, "plaintiffs") filed a complaint challenging the decision of the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to deny plaintiff's petition to regulate lead shots, bullets, and fishing sinkers under the Toxic Substances Control Act ("TSCA"). Pending before the Court is a contested motion to intervene as of right or, in the alternative, for permissive intervention filed by the Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. ("ABR"). ABR is a trade association representing companies that recycle and reclaim lead to be used for secondary production, including the manufacture of lead bullets, shots, and fishing sinkers. Declaration of Earl Cornette 5-7, Docket No. 8-2 ("Cornette Decl."). Members of ABR also manufacture these products. Cornette Decl. 8. Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that upon timely motion a party shall be permitted to intervene as a matter of right when the movant "claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest." In addition, a party seeking to intervene as of right must demonstrate that it has standing under Article III of the Constitution. Fund for Animals v. Norton, 322 F.3d 728, 731-32 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (to establish standing a prospective intervenor must demonstrate a concrete and imminent injury that is fairly traceable to the regulatory action and that is redressable by a favorable decision of the court). For the following reasons, and largely for the reasons given by the prospective intervenor, the Court finds that ABR has satisfied these criteria and thus is entitled to intervene in this matter as of right. First, no party contests that ABR's motion was timely filed, as the federal defendants have not yet responded to the complaint. Second, the Court concludes that ABR has standing to intervene on behalf of its members. See Hunt v. Washington State Apple Adver. Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977) (setting out the standard for associational standing). Particularly, ABR has demonstrated that its members would have standing in their own right because they produce and process lead that is used in the manufacture of ammunition and fishing sinkers, and they also manufacture those products, which are the objects of the particular regulation that plaintiff seeks. Fund for Animals, 322 F.3d at 733-34 (if the prospective intervenor's property is "an object of the action (or foregone action) at issue" there should be "little question that the action or inaction has caused him injury, and that a judgment preventing or requiring the action will redress it" (citations omitted)). A demonstration of standing is also sufficient to establish "an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2); Fund for Animals, 322 F.3d at 735. Third, ABR has demonstrated that the disposition of this action "may as a practical matter impair or impede [its] ability to protect its interest." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). ABR members currently benefit from the agency's determination that it has no authority to regulate lead ammunition and fishing sinkers. Plaintiffs have asked this Court to order EPA to develop and implement regulations for lead shots, bullets, and fishing sinkers under TSCA because these items present an "unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment." Compl. 7. If the Court were to grant plaintiffs' requested relief, the "task of reestablishing the status quo... will be difficult and burdensome." Fund for Animals, 322 F.2d at 735. The opportunity to participate in subsequent rulemaking procedures is an inadequate substitute. Finally, ABR has sufficiently demonstrated that the government cannot adequately represent the business interests of ABR's members, even if they share the same interest in upholding the EPA's denial of plaintiffs' petition. See Fund for Animals, 322 F.3d at 736-37 (noting that the D.C. Circuit has often concluded that governmental entities do not adequately represent the interests of prospective intervenors on similar grounds). Accordingly, this Court finds that ABR is entitled to intervene as of right, and it is hereby ORDERED that #8 the motion of the Association of Battery Recyclers to intervene as a defendant pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file [8-1] the Proposed Answer attached to ABR's motion as Exhibit A. The Court declines to adopt plaintiffs' recommendation to limit the scope of ABR's participation in this litigation at this time; however, the Court may direct joint or coordinated briefing as appropriate. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 18, 2011. (lcegs5)
|
| Filing 16 REPLY to opposition to motion re #8 MOTION to Intervene filed by ASSOCIATION OF BATTERY RECYCLERS, INC.. (Steinwurtzel, Robert) |
| Filing 15 NOTICE of Appearance by Madeline P. Fleisher on behalf of All Defendants (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service)(Fleisher, Madeline) |
| Filing 14 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY served on 12/10/2010 (Lopez, Jaclyn) |
| Filing 13 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. LISA P. JACKSON served on 12/10/2010 (Lopez, Jaclyn) |
| Filing 12 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the US Attorney. Date of Service Upon U.S. Attorney 12/10/2010. Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 2/8/2011. (Lopez, Jaclyn) |
| Filing 11 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on Attorney General. Date of Service Upon Attorney General 12/10/2010. (Lopez, Jaclyn) |
| Filing 10 Memorandum in opposition to re #8 MOTION to Intervene filed by CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, PROJECT GUTPILE, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lopez, Jaclyn) |
| Filing 9 REPLY to opposition to motion re #5 MOTION to Intervene filed by NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION, INC.. (Martella, Roger) |
| Filing 8 MOTION to Intervene as a Defendant by ASSOCIATION OF BATTERY RECYCLERS, INC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Proposed Answer, #2 Declaration if Earl C. Cornette, #3 Text of Proposed Order)(znmw, ) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Service by Mail to Non-ECF Parties by CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, PROJECT GUTPILE, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY re #6 Memorandum in Opposition, (Keats, Adam) |
| Filing 6 Memorandum in opposition to re #5 MOTION to Intervene on behalf of CBD, PEER, and Project Gutpile filed by CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order on behalf of CBD, PEER, and Project Gutpile)(Lopez, Jaclyn) |
| Filing 5 MOTION to Intervene by NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION, INC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 - complaint, #2 Exhibit 2 - Keane Declaration, #3 Text of Proposed Order)(rdj) |
|
MINUTE ORDER granting #4 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Adam Keats is admitted pro hac vice in this action. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 29, 2010. (lcegs1)
|
|
MINUTE ORDER granting #3 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Jaclyn Lopez is admitted pro hac vice in this action. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 29, 2010. (lcegs1)
|
| Filing 4 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice ADAM KEATS; Firm - Center for Biological Diversity, :Address- 351 California Street, Suite 600, San Francisco, CA 94104. Phone No. - (415) 436-9682 ext. 304. Fax No. - (415) 436-9683 by CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, PROJECT GUTPILE, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Text of Proposed Order)(jf, ) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- JACLYN LOPEZ, :Firm- Center for Biological Diversity, :Address- 351 California Street, Suite 600, San Francisco, CA 94104. Phone No. - (415) 436-9682 ext. 305. Fax No. - (415) 436-9683 by CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, PROJECT GUTPILE, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Text of Proposed Order)(jf, ) |
| Filing 2 LCvR 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests NONE by CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, PROJECT GUTPILE, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY (jf, ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, LISA P. JACKSON ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4616034401) filed by CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY, PROJECT GUTPILE. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(jf, ) |
| SUMMONS (4) Issued as to ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, LISA P. JACKSON, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (jf, ) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the District Of Columbia District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
