Center for Biological Diversity v. Lohn

• Decision Date: 27 December 2007
• Docket Number: No. 05-35638.,05-35638.
• Citation: 511 F.3d 960
• Parties: CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert LOHN, Northwest Regional Administrator of National Marine Fisheries Service; Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary of Commerce, U.S. Department of Commerce, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

511 F.3d 960

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert LOHN, Northwest Regional Administrator of National Marine Fisheries Service; Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary of Commerce, U.S. Department of Commerce, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-35638.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted November 15, 2006.

Filed December 27, 2007.

Brent Plater, Center for Biological Diversity, San Francisco, CA, for the plaintiff-appellant, and filed briefs.

M. Alice Thurston, Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for the defendants-appellees; Sue Ellen Woolridge, Assistant Attorney General, Keith Rizzardi and David Shilton, Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC,

Melanie J. Rowland, Office of the General Counsel, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA, and Benjamin C. Jesup, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, were on the brief.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington; Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-02-02505-RSL.

Before ALFRED T. GOODWIN, DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, and RAYMOND C. FISHER, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND OPINION

O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:

ORDER

The petition for panel rehearing is GRANTED. The opinion filed on April 26, 2007, and appearing at 483 F.3d 984 (9th Cir.2007) is withdrawn. The superseding opinion will be filed concurrently with this order. No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc may be filed.

OPINION

We are asked to decide whether the federal government's policy for listing killer whales under the Endangered Species Act is invalid.

I

The Center for Biological Diversity ("Center"), along with eleven co-petitioners not parties to this appeal, petitioned the National Marine Fisheries Service ("Service") to list the Southern Resident killer whale ("Southern Resident") as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544.¹ Applying its Distinct Population Segment Policy ("DPS Policy")² for listing endangered species under the ESA, the Service issued a proposed ruling that concluded listing the Southern Resident was "not warranted" because the Southern Resident was not "significant" to its taxon. See 67 Fed.Reg. 44,133 (July 1, 2002).

The Center challenged the Service's proposed determination in district court. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted in part and denied in part. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Lohn, 296 F.Supp.2d 1223, 1243 (W.D.Wash.2003). The district court concluded that the DPS Policy was not contrary to congressional intent regarding the ESA, and that it was a reasonable interpretation of the ambiguous term "distinct population segment."³ Id. at 1235-36. However, the district court set aside the Service's "not warranted" finding because it failed to utilize the best available scientific data when determining whether the Southern Resident was "significant" under that policy. Id. at 1240-41. The district court ordered the Service to reexamine according to the declared legal standard whether the Southern Resident should be listed as an endangered species and to issue a new finding within twelve months. Id. at 1243.

Pursuant to the district court's order, the Service reexamined the listing petition and issued a proposed rule that recommended listing the Southern Resident as a threatened species. See 69 Fed.Reg. 76,673 (Dec. 22, 2004). The Center then appealed from the district court's judgment, arguing that the Service's DPS Policy is not entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984), and that the policy is unlawfully restrictive. Subsequently, the Service issued a final rule listing the Southern Resident as an endangered (as opposed to threatened) species. See 70 Fed.Reg. 69,903 (Nov. 18, 2005).

II

The Service contends that this case is now moot because it has, since the district court's decision, issued a proposed rule that recommended listing the Southern Resident as a threatened species and ultimately has issued a final rule listing the Southern Resident as an endangered species.

A

If an event occurs during the pendency of the appeal that renders the case moot, we lack jurisdiction. See United States v. Geophysical Corp. of Alaska, 732 F.2d 693, 698 (9th Cir.1984). When a plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, as here, the "test for mootness ... is `whether the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.'" Biodiversity Legal Found. v. Badgley, 309 F.3d 1166, 1174-75 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Md. Cas. Co. v. Pac. Coal & Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270, 273, 61 S.Ct. 510, 85 L.Ed. 826 (1941)). "Stated another way, the `central question' before us is `whether changes in the circumstances that prevailed at the beginning of litigation have forestalled any occasion for meaningful relief.'" Gator.com Corp. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 398 F.3d 1125, 1129 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (quoting West v. Sec'y of the Dep't of Transp., 206 F.3d 920, 925 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2000)). The Service carries the burden of establishing mootness. See S. Or. Barter Fair v. Jackson County, 372 F.3d 1128, 1134 (9th Cir.2004).

B

The Center asks us to declare the Service's DPS Policy unlawful and to "instruct [the Service] not to apply the DPS Policy in making a final determination on the agency's decision to finalize the proposed rule to list the Southern Resident killer whale." Because the Service has issued its final rule listing the Southern Resident as an endangered species, we cannot instruct the Service to complete the final determination process without applying the DPS Policy. We cannot grant the injunctive relief the Center seeks and therefore this claim for relief is moot. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir.1978) ("Where the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred, and the appellate courts cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot.").

We have held, however, that where, as here, both injunctive and declaratory relief are sought but the request for injunctive relief is rendered moot, the case is not moot if declaratory relief would nevertheless provide meaningful relief. Biodiversity Legal Found., 309 F.3d at 1175. In this case, no "live" controversy remains between the parties because the challenged activity has "evaporated or disappeared." Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 893 F.2d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.1989) (stating that "[a] case or controversy exists justifying declaratory relief only when `the challenged government activity ... is not contingent, has not evaporated or disappeared, and, by its continuing and brooding presence, casts what may well be a substantial adverse effect on the interests of the petitioning parties' ") (quoting Super Tire Eng'g Co. v. McCorkle, 416 U.S. 115, 122, 94 S.Ct. 1694, 40 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974)). In short, declaring the DPS Policy unlawful would serve no purpose in this case because the Service has listed the Southern Resident as an endangered species, the Center's ultimate objective. That the DPS Policy might adversely affect the Southern Resident's endangered species status or the Service's listing determination of certain other killer whale populations at some indeterminate time in the future is too remote and too speculative a consideration to save this case from mootness. See id. (explaining that no case or controversy exists justifying declaratory relief where the purported "adverse effect" is "`so remote and speculative that there [is] no tangible prejudice to the existing interests of the parties'" (alteration and emphasis in original) (quoting Super Tire Eng'g Co., 416 U.S. at 123, 94 S.Ct. 1694)). We conclude, therefore, that the Center's claim for declaratory relief is also moot, as we can provide no meaningful relief.⁴

C

The Center argues that even if this case is technically moot, we have jurisdiction to consider the merits because one of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine applies. We have recognized several major exceptions to mootness, including for (1) "collateral legal consequences," (2) "wrongs capable of repetition yet evading review," and (3) "voluntary cessation." In re Burrell, 415 F.3d 994, 998 (9th Cir. 2005). We are persuaded that none of these exceptions fits this case.

The first exception to the mootness doctrine applies where an appellant "would suffer collateral legal consequences if the actions being appealed were allowed to stand." Pub. Utilities Comm'n of the State of Cal. v. F.E.R.C., 100 F.3d 1451, 1460 (9th Cir.1996). The Center argues that the "collateral legal consequences" exception applies because, relying on the district court's order and the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the Service has attempted to preclude the Center from challenging the DPS Policy in other legal proceedings. But this argument is foreclosed by our precedent, as the Center's suggested harm is merely hypothetical or speculative. See Burrell, 415 F.3d at 999 (holding that a party "may not invoke as an exception to the mootness doctrine the specter of continuing legal harm from res judicata or collateral estoppel arising from his mooted claims when such harm is merely hypothetical and speculative"). Furthermore, as we consider below, our general practice of vacating the district court's judgment "is commonly utilized in precisely this situation to prevent a judgment, unreviewable because of mootness, from spawning any legal consequences." United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 41, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950); see also Burrell, 415 F.3d at 999. The Center suggests no...