Pacific Dawn LLC v. Pritzker, No. 14-15224 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs challenge the NMFS's decision to calculate the amount of their initial share of the total allowable catch of Pacific whiting based on their participation in the fishery prior to 2003 and 2004, respectively, rather than on their much greater participation in the years immediately before 2010, when the regulations implementing this program were issued. The court concluded that NMFS's decision to apply the 2004 control date to processors was not arbitrary or capricious; with respect to the proposed decision on the 2003 and 2004 end dates for allocating quota shares, NMFS explained its analysis of dependence; because NMFS adequately took into account “dependence on the fishery” under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1853 (b)(6)(B), and “investments in, and dependence upon, the fishery” under section 1853a(c)(5)(A)(iii), its decision was not inconsistent with those statutory requirements; nor was NMFS’s decision inconsistent with the related standards identified by Pacific Dawn; because NMFS reasonably determined that retaining the 2003 and 2004 end dates would be the least disruptive to current fishing practices, its conclusion was not inconsistent with Objective 14 of the Groundfish Management Plan; and the court rejected Pacific Dawn's argument that NMFS’s decision was inconsistent with its practices in other fisheries, where NMFS had concluded that more recent participation reflected greater dependence on the fishery. Therefore, because NMFS properly considered the relevant factors and reasonably decided to maintain the 2003 and 2004 end dates, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants.
Court Description: Magnuson-Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the National Marine Fisheries Service and intervenors in an action brought by a fish harvester and a fish processor, who are subject to a fishery management program that limits their share of the total allowable catch of Pacific whiting, challenging a 2013 decision by the Service to calculate the amount of their initial share based on their PACIFIC DAWN V. PRITZKER 3 participation in the fishery prior to 2003 and 2004, respectively. The panel held that the Service’s 2013 decision was not arbitrary or capricious because the Service considered the required factors and made a reasonable decision to use the 2003 and 2004 dates. The panel rejected plaintiffs’ claim that the Service’s 2013 decision to select a qualifying period ending in 2003 for harvesters and 2004 for processors was arbitrary and capricious because it failed to take into account “present participation” in the fishery as required by 16 U.S.C. § 1853(b)(6)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Conservation and Management Act. The panel held that the record makes clear the Service considered “present participation,” but reasonably gave it less weight than other factors. The panel also rejected plaintiffs’ claim that the Service’s 2013 decision was arbitrary and capricious because it failed to take into account dependence upon the fishery as required by §§ 1853(b)(6)(B) and 1853a(c)(5)(A) of the Magnuson- Stevens Act. 4 PACIFIC DAWN V. PRITZKER
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.