Cal. Sea Urchin Comm'n v. Bean, No. 14-55580 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs filed suit alleging that the FWS violated its statutory authority under Public Law 99-625 by terminating a translocation program for the southern sea otter. The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding that it constituted a facial challenge to a 1987 regulation and was thus untimely. The court concluded that the operative agency action challenged is the 2012 program termination, and therefore plaintiffs’ 2013 challenge is timely. The court held only that plaintiffs may challenge FWS’s termination of the program within six years of the decision to terminate the program, and plaintiffs were not required to bring suit within six years of the 1987 rulemaking espousing the authority to terminate the program. To hold otherwise would require plaintiffs to have filed suit nearly a decade before FWS took the action that caused their injury. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. The district court on remand should decide if there is merit to plaintiffs’ position that FWS was without Congressional authority to terminate the translocation program.
Court Description: Environmental Law The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal on timeliness grounds of plaintiff commercial fishing groups’ complaint alleging that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service violated its statutory authority under Public Law 99-625 by terminating a translocation program for the southern sea otter. The panel held that plaintiffs’ challenge, filed in 2013, was timely because the operative agency action challenged was the Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2012 promulgation of a rule terminating the translocation program. Specifically, the panel held that plaintiffs may challenge the termination of the program within six years of the decision to terminate the program, and were not required to bring suit within six years of the 1987 rulemaking espousing the authority to terminate the program. On remand, the panel directed the district court to decide if there was merit to plaintiffs’ position that the Fish and Wildlife Service was without Congressional authority to terminate the translocation program.
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.