Upload
deckboss
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/20/2019 West Coast groundfish lawsuit
1/18
STOEL RIVES LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT -1-
80689554.3 0052902-00014
EDWARD C. DUCKERS (SB #242113)[email protected] RIVES LLP Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1120San Francisco, CA 94111Telephone: (415) 617-8900Facsimile: (415) 617-8907
Attorneys for PlaintiffsSea Princess, LLC; Pacific Choice Seafood Company;Pacific Fishing, LLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EUREKA DIVISION
PACIFIC CHOICE SEAFOOD COMPANY;SEA PRINCESS, LLC; PACIFIC FISHING,LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PENNY PRITZKER, U.S. SECRETARY OFCOMMERCE; NATIONAL MARINEFISHERIES SERVICE,
Defendants.
Case No.
COMPLAINT
(5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706; 16 U.S.C. §§ 1801–1891d; 42 U.S.C. § 4321–4370h)
Administrative Procedure Act Case
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this action, Pacific Choice Seafood Company (“Pacific Choice”), Sea Princess,
LLC (“Sea Princess”), and Pacific Fishing, LLC (“Pacific Fishing”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)
challenge an unlawful federal fisheries management program that threatens the ongoing viability
of important West Coast fisheries that support jobs, facilities, fishermen, and businesses in
California, Oregon, and Washington.
2. The negative effects of Defendants’ unlawful actions have been and will continue
to be felt along the entire West Coast. As one specific example, the Northern California
commercial groundfish fishing industry faces possible extinction if Defendants’ unlawful actions
are allowed to continue. Eureka, California was once the epicenter of a thriving commercial
Case 1:15-cv-05572-NJV Document 1 Filed 12/04/15 Page 1 of 18
8/20/2019 West Coast groundfish lawsuit
2/18
STOEL RIVES LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT -2-
80689554.3 0052902-00014
groundfish fishery, with a multitude of fishing vessels delivering locally caught groundfish to
several shoreside processors. This led to development of bustling harbors, job growth in fishing
and processing, and growth in related industries such as ship repair, navigation, maintenance,
fueling, and transportation.
3. Today, as a result of various historical economic and management factors, there is
only one shoreside processing facility in Eureka—owned by Pacific Choice—that processes
groundfish year-round. More than half of the groundfish delivered to Pacific Choice come from
only four fishing vessels, all of which are owned by Pacific Fishing. Without the Eureka facility
and these four vessels, groundfish processing opportunities in Eureka would be severely
diminished.
4.
The unlawful actions challenged in this Complaint have substantial negative
impacts on Plaintiffs and seriously threaten the ongoing viability of the shoreside groundfish
fishery all along the West Coast. As set forth below, Defendants’ actions violate federal law and
should be vacated by this Court.
II. SUMMARY OF ACTION
5. Plaintiffs challenge decisions of the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”)
that establish and implement an individual transferable quota program for the Pacific Coast
groundfish limited-entry trawl fishery (“IFQ Program”). Specifically, Plaintiffs challenge:
a. NMFS’s approval of Amendments 20 and 21 to the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (“FMP”);
b. NMFS’s final rule, 80 Fed. Reg. 69,138 (Nov. 9, 2015), and associated
regulations (“November 2015 Rule”);
c. NMFS’s final rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 78,344 (Dec. 15, 2010), and associated
regulations (“December 2010 Rule”); and
d. NMFS’s final rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 60,868 (Oct. 1, 2010), and associated
regulations (“October 2010 Rule”).1
1 The November 2015 Rule, the December 2010 Rule, and the October 2010 Rule are
collectively referred to in this Complaint as the “Regulations.” The Regulations are promulgated
Case 1:15-cv-05572-NJV Document 1 Filed 12/04/15 Page 2 of 18
8/20/2019 West Coast groundfish lawsuit
3/18
STOEL RIVES LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT -3-
80689554.3 0052902-00014
6. Among other things, the IFQ Program establishes a system of allocating, limiting,
and providing for transfers of quota shares (“QS”) in the West Coast non-whiting, shorebased
groundfish trawl fishery (the “Fishery”).2 As relevant to this action, the IFQ Program establishes
an aggregate limit on the amount of total QS, across all applicable species fished in the Fishery,
that a “person” may own and “control.”
7. “Control” is expansively defined in the Regulations and includes “the ability
through any means whatsoever to control or have a controlling influence over [an] entity to which
QS . . . is registered.” Under the Regulations, “control” and ownership of QS are also implied by
the ownership of an economic or financial interest in a separate entity that owns or controls QS.
The specific regulations governing ownership and “control,” for purposes of administering the
IFQ Program, are set forth at 50 C.F.R. § 660.140(d)(4) and are referred to in this Complaint
collectively as the “Control Rule.”
8. A fundamental problem with the Control Rule is that it imputes to shareholders,
and others deemed to have “control” (no matter how remote), the ownership and control of assets
(i.e., QS) that are separately owned by corporations or other entities, in a manner that is
incompatible with well-established principles of corporate and agency law.
9.
The IFQ Program establishes the aggregate control limit to be 2.7% of all QS held
by all permit holders in the Fishery (the “Aggregate Limit”). See 50 C.F.R. §
660.140(d)(4)(i)(C). Any “person” (as defined in the Regulations) whose ownership or “control”
(also as defined in the Regulations) of QS exceeds the Aggregate Limit must divest itself of QS
so as not to exceed the limit by no later than November 30, 2015. Any QS not divested is
revoked by NMFS.
10. The IFQ Program has not performed as NMFS intended. Since the IFQ Program
was initiated, utilization rates in the Fishery have not improved, costs to harvesters have
at 50 C.F.R. part 660 and implement the IFQ Program, which is specifically promulgated at 50C.F.R. § 660.140.
2 The “Fishery,” as referenced in this Complaint, does not include halibut or Pacific
whiting.
Case 1:15-cv-05572-NJV Document 1 Filed 12/04/15 Page 3 of 18
8/20/2019 West Coast groundfish lawsuit
4/18
STOEL RIVES LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT -4-
80689554.3 0052902-00014
dramatically increased, and gross proceeds have remained stagnant, and in some cases, decreased.
As a result of the IFQ Program, a significant amount of fishing effort has transferred out of
California, further threatening the viability of the Northern California groundfish fishery. Indeed,
NMFS itself recently published a report finding that the efficient and effective operation of the
Fishery is unduly burdened by elements of the IFQ Program, such as the Aggregate Limit.3 Full
divestiture, effective as of November 30, 2015, will exacerbate these problems on a large scale.
In short, as has now been acknowledged by some of its strongest original proponents, the IFQ
Program is an economic failure. The IFQ Program seriously threatens the viability of the Fishery
11. As set forth in more detail in this Complaint, the Regulations, and Amendments 20
and 21, violate the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) (5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706) and the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (“Magnuson Act”) (16 U.S.C. §§
1801-1891d) because (a) the Control Rule unlawfully supplants well-established common and
statutory law without statutory authority to do so and is, therefore, ultra vires; (b) the Aggregate
Limit is not supported by a rational explanation based on sufficient record evidence, and is
arbitrary and capricious; (c) NMFS’s decision to force divestiture of QS without giving credit to
those who were allocated QS based on catch landing history before the IFQ Program was
implemented (i.e., “grandfathering”), and without adequate notice, is arbitrary and capricious; (d)
the Regulations do not comply with the Magnuson Act’s National Standards and provisions
governing limited access privilege programs (“LAPPs”); and (e) the November 2015 Rule is
arbitrary and capricious for the additional reason that NMFS unlawfully refused to postpone the
divestiture period until after the reallocation for widow rockfish.
12. The Regulations, and Amendments 20 and 21, also violate the National
Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) (42 U.S.C. § 4331-4370h) because NMFS (a) did not give
the effects of the action, including socio-economic effects, the required “hard look” analysis and
(b) did not evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives.
3 See Holland, D.S., and K. Norman. 2015. The Anatomy of a Multispecies Individual
Fishing Quota (IFQ) “Market” in Development. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-158, p. 30.
Case 1:15-cv-05572-NJV Document 1 Filed 12/04/15 Page 4 of 18
8/20/2019 West Coast groundfish lawsuit
5/18
STOEL RIVES LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT -5-
80689554.3 0052902-00014
13. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court declare the Regulations, and
Amendments 20 and 21, unlawful, and vacate and remand the Regulations, and Amendments 20
and 21, to NMFS for further consideration in compliance with all applicable law.
III. PARTIES
14. Pacific Choice is an Oregon corporation with its principal place of business in
Eureka, California. Pacific Choice operates the only remaining seafood processing facility in
Eureka that processes groundfish year-round. Pacific Choice’s Eureka facility has been in
operation since the 1940s. Pacific Choice maintains a vested interest in the sound management of
the Fishery, and is regulated under, and adversely affected by, the IFQ Program. The ongoing
viability of its Eureka facility is seriously threatened by the IFQ Program.
15.
Sea Princess is an Oregon limited liability company (“LLC”) that owns a fishing
vessel that participates in the Fishery. Sea Princess maintains a vested interest in the sound
management of the Fishery, and is regulated under, and adversely affected by, the IFQ Program.
As a result of the IFQ Program, Sea Princess was forced to divest a significant amount of QS
before November 30, 2015.
16. Pacific Fishing is an Oregon LLC that owns, among other things, six separate
LLCs, including Sea Princess, each of which owns a vessel that participates in the Fishery. These
vessels fish in Washington, Oregon, and California, and deliver to processing plants in Northern
California and Oregon. Pacific Fishing maintains a vested interest in the sound management of
the Fishery, and is regulated under, and adversely affected by, the IFQ Program. Under the
Regulations, Pacific Fishing is deemed to own and control the QS owned by Sea Princess and the
other separate LLCs owned by Pacific Fishing, as well as by other entities. Pacific Fishing has
been forced to make business decisions that are contrary to its interests as a result of the
substantial amount of QS that is imputed to Pacific Fishing under the Regulations. The LLCs
owned by Pacific Fishing are also regulated under, and adversely affected by, the IFQ Program,
and they have been forced to divest QS as a result of the IFQ Program.
17. On or about June 26, 2013, Defendant Penny Pritzker was sworn in as the current
Secretary of the United States Department of Commerce. Penny Pritzker, in her official capacity
Case 1:15-cv-05572-NJV Document 1 Filed 12/04/15 Page 5 of 18
8/20/2019 West Coast groundfish lawsuit
6/18
STOEL RIVES LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT -6-
80689554.3 0052902-00014
as Secretary of Commerce, directs all business of the Department of Commerce, including
NMFS. In her official capacity as Secretary of Commerce, Penny Pritzker is responsible for
NMFS’s approval of Amendments 20 and 21 and promulgation of the Regulations, and for the
associated statutory violations alleged in this Complaint.
18. NMFS is an agency of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of
the United States Department of Commerce. NMFS has been delegated the responsibility for
administering the provisions of the Magnuson Act, including the implementation of LAPPs, such
as the IFQ Program. The authority delegated to NMFS to administer and to implement the
Magnuson Act is subject to, and must be compliant with, the APA, NEPA, and all other
applicable law.
IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
19. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706
(APA), 16 U.S.C. § 1855(f) (Magnuson Act), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 28 U.S.C. §
2201 (declaratory judgments), and 28 U.S.C. § 2202 (injunctive relief).
20. Venue lies properly in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because
NMFS maintains an office in this district and because Pacific Choice resides in and has its
principle place of business in this district.
V. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
21. Assignment to the Eureka Division of the Northern District of California is proper
because Pacific Choice resides in and has its principle place of business in Eureka, California.
VI. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
22. The APA provides for judicial review of final agency action. 5 U.S.C. § 702. The
APA requires courts reviewing agency action to “hold unlawful and set aside [final] agency
action, findings, and conclusions” that, among other things, are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law”; “in excess of statutory jurisdiction,
authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right”; or “without observance of procedure required
by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C), (D). Actions taken by NMFS under the Magnuson Act are
subject to judicial review under the APA. See 16 U.S.C. § 1855(f).
Case 1:15-cv-05572-NJV Document 1 Filed 12/04/15 Page 6 of 18
8/20/2019 West Coast groundfish lawsuit
7/18
STOEL RIVES LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT -7-
80689554.3 0052902-00014
23. The Magnuson Act creates a legal framework for “conserv[ing] and manag[ing]
the fishery resources found off the coasts of the United States” by providing for the “preparation
and implementation . . . of [FMPs].” 16 U.S.C. §§ 1801(a)(1), (b)(4), 1853-54. To develop and
implement FMPs, the Magnuson Act created eight Regional Fishery Management Councils, each
having fishery management responsibilities over an assigned geographic area. See id. § 1852(a),
(h). Each Council proposes FMPs, FMP amendments, and implementing regulations to govern
fishing activities within its region. See id. § 1853(a), (c).
24. Before FMPs, FMP amendments, and implementing regulations become effective,
NMFS must review and approve them. Id. § 1854(a)-(b). NMFS is only authorized to approve
FMPs, FMP amendments, and implementing regulations if they are consistent with applicable
law. See id. § 1854(a)(3), (b)(1)(B). Additionally, all implementing regulations must be
consistent with the FMP and FMP amendments. Id. § 1854(b)(1)(B).
25. All Magnuson Act actions must be consistent with the National Standards. Id. §
1853(a)(1)(C). These standards require, among other things, that Council and NMFS actions
under the Magnuson Act “achiev[e], on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery”
and “be based on the best scientific information available,” while “minimiz[ing] bycatch.” Id . §
1851(a)(1)-(2), (9). Additionally, such actions must “take into account the importance of fishery
resources to fishing communities by utilizing [the best available] economic and social data . . .
to… provide for the sustained participation of such communities, and . . . minimize adverse
economic impacts on such communities.” Id. § 1851(a)(8). When implementing LAPPs, such as
the IFQ Program, NMFS must also ensure that allocations and assignments of fishing privileges
are “(A) fair and equitable to all . . . fishermen; (B) reasonably calculated to promote
conservation; and (C) carried out in such manner that no particular individual, corporation, or
other entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges.” Id . § 1851(a)(4).
26. LAPPs are required to promote “fishery conservation and management” and
“social and economic benefits” as well as “specify the goals of the program.” Id . §
1853a(c)(1)(C)(ii)-(iii), (F). LAPPs also must establish “fair and equitable initial allocations” tha
include consideration of, among other things, “current and historical harvests,” “employment in
Case 1:15-cv-05572-NJV Document 1 Filed 12/04/15 Page 7 of 18
8/20/2019 West Coast groundfish lawsuit
8/18
STOEL RIVES LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT -8-
80689554.3 0052902-00014
the harvesting and processing sectors,” “investments in, and dependence upon, the fishery,” and
“the current and historical participation of fishing communities.” Id. § 1853a(c)(5)(A). At the
same time, LAPPs must ensure that no privilege holder acquires an “excessive share” of the total
privileges. Id. § 1853a(c)(5)(D).
27. NEPA requires federal agencies to carefully analyze the potential impacts of, and
alternatives to, all proposed major federal actions that significantly impact the environment in an
environmental impact statement (“EIS”). See 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C). This requires an agency to,
among other things, consider the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of its proposed action,
and “[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and . . . briefly
discuss the reasons” for eliminating other alternatives. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.14, 1508.25(c),
1508.7.
VII. STATEMENT OF FACTS
28. On or about May 7, 2010, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (“Council”)
presented FMP Amendments 20 and 21 to NMFS for approval.
29. The primary stated goals of Amendment 20 are to:
Create and implement a capacity rationalization plan that increases
net economic benefits, creates individual economic stability,
provides for full utilization of the trawl sector allocation, considersenvironmental impacts, and achieves individual accountability of
catch and bycatch.
Additional stated objectives of Amendment 20 include: (1) to “[p]rovide for a viable, profitable,
and efficient groundfish fishery”; (2) to “[m]inimize adverse effects . . . on fishing communities”;
and (3) to “[p]romote measurable economic and employment benefits through the seafood
catching, processing, distribution elements, and support sectors of the industry.”
30. To accomplish these goals and objectives, Amendment 20, among other things,
instituted a LAPP, pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1853a, for the shorebased trawl fleet, applicable to the
whiting and non-whiting sectors. This action concerns only the portions of the LAPP applicable
to the non-whiting sector of the shorebased trawl fleet (i.e., the IFQ Program).
Case 1:15-cv-05572-NJV Document 1 Filed 12/04/15 Page 8 of 18
8/20/2019 West Coast groundfish lawsuit
9/18
STOEL RIVES LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT -9-
80689554.3 0052902-00014
31. Amendment 21 generally supplements Amendment 20 and establishes inter-sector
and intra-sector total allowable catch allocations among various fishery sectors.
32. In 2010, NMFS partially approved Amendments 20 and 21 and published
proposed rules to implement Amendments 20 and 21 by regulation. 75 Fed. Reg. 32,994 (June
10, 2010); 75 Fed. Reg. 53,380 (Aug. 31, 2010). NMFS subsequently finalized those proposed
rules and issued the October 2010 Rule and the December 2010 Rule to implement Amendments
20 and 21. On or about June 2010, NMFS issued the final EIS for Amendment 20 and the final
EIS for Amendment 21, both addressing the IFQ Program (collectively, the “FEIS”).
33. On September 2, 2015, NMFS published another proposed rule to further
implement the IFQ Program by setting specific divestiture-related deadlines, establishing a
process for revocation of QS, adding an option for the abandonment of QS, reaffirming that
excess QS would be proportionally revoked across fish species and permits, and reaffirming that
revoked QS would be proportionally distributed among the participants in the Fishery. 80 Fed.
Reg. 53,088 (Sept. 2, 2015). This proposed rule was finalized with the issuance of the November
2015 Rule. The November 2015 Rule is an “action,” as that term is used in 16 U.S.C. § 1855(f),
that implements the October 2010 Rule and the December 2010 Rule.
34.
Under the IFQ Program, QS permit owners are annually assigned a specific
amount of “quota pounds” (“QP”) for each fish species included in the Fishery. The amount of
annual QP assigned to a QS permit holder is based upon the QS percentages held by the QS
permit holder and the annual catch allocations made for each species covered by the IFQ
Program. QS may be bought and sold among QS permit holders. QP may also be bought and
sold, as well as leased, among QS permit holders. All transfers of QS and QP must be approved
by NMFS.
35. The IFQ Program sets individual QS control limits for each of the fish species
included in the Fishery. The IFQ Program also sets an aggregate QS control limit for the Fishery
(the Aggregate Limit), with which each participant in the IFQ Program must comply. This action
addresses the Aggregate Limit.
Case 1:15-cv-05572-NJV Document 1 Filed 12/04/15 Page 9 of 18
8/20/2019 West Coast groundfish lawsuit
10/18
STOEL RIVES LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT -10-
80689554.3 0052902-00014
36. The Aggregate Limit requires that any “person” (as defined in the Regulations)
may not own or “control” more than 2.7% of the total QS assigned, for all species combined, in
the Fishery.
37. Under the IFQ Program, and specifically the Control Rule, “control” is
expansively defined and includes “the ability through any means whatsoever to control or have a
controlling influence over [an] entity to which QS . . . is registered.” See 50 C.F.R. §
660.140(d)(4)(iii). In addition to this catchall definition for “control,” the Control Rule lists a
number of situations that establish “control” for purposes of the IFQ Program. Id . “Control” and
ownership of QS, for purposes of the Control Rule, is also implied by the ownership of an
economic or financial interest in a separate entity that owns or controls QS. Id . §
660.140(d)(4)(ii).
38. In 2010, initial allocations of QS were made to participants in the Fishery based
upon the catch landing history associated with limited-entry permits. Under the IFQ Program,
any participant whose ownership and control of QS exceeds the Aggregate Limit must divest
itself of the excess QS by no later than November 30, 2015. Excess QS that is not divested by
this deadline is revoked by NMFS.
39.
In a Federal Register notice dated January 9, 2004, NMFS purported to give notice
that NMFS was planning to institute a LAPP for the Fishery. See 69 Fed. Reg. 1563 (Jan. 9,
2004). This notice did not state that catch landing history associated with limited-entry permits
before the LAPP was established would not be “grandfathered,” or otherwise credited, after the
LAPP was established. As the Council and NMFS have recognized, this notice did not
sufficiently apprise participants in the Fishery that the IFQ Program would negatively affect a
participant’s interest in the Fishery before the IFQ Program was established.
40. NMFS’s failure to provide sufficient notice of the potential negative effects of the
IFQ Program was exacerbated by NMFS’s formal encouragement of consolidation in the Fishery
through the establishment of a fishing capacity reduction program for the Fishery (the “Buy-Back
Program”). See 68 Fed. Reg. 42,613 (July 18, 2003). Under the Buy-Back Program, certain
Fishery participants were paid to surrender their limited-entry permits and restrict their vessels. A
Case 1:15-cv-05572-NJV Document 1 Filed 12/04/15 Page 10 of 18
8/20/2019 West Coast groundfish lawsuit
11/18
STOEL RIVES LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT -11-
80689554.3 0052902-00014
loan, which was to be repaid by participants remaining in the Fishery (and is still being repaid),
financed the majority of the cost of the Buy-Back Program. The Buy-Back Program caused
further consolidation of the Fishery, which effectively resulted in larger proportionate interests in
the Fishery for the participants that remained in the Fishery.
41. As a result of the actions described above and below, Plaintiffs have suffered legal
wrongs and have been adversely affected and aggrieved within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 702.
Among other things, application of the Regulations, including the Aggregate Limit and the
Control Rule, has unlawfully required Plaintiffs to divest themselves of QS that they have been
deemed to own or “control,” and to otherwise act in a manner that is contrary to their rights and
interests. Continued application of the IFQ Program may also cause the partial or entire closure
of one or more groundfish processing operations, such as Pacific Choice’s Eureka facility.
VIII. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
42. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
43. Under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C), a reviewing court shall hold unlawful and
set aside agency action found to be in excess of the agency’s statutory authority or jurisdiction.
44. The Magnuson Act requires all FMP amendments and implementing regulations to
be consistent with applicable law. 16 U.S.C. § 1854(a)(3), (b)(1)(B). Common law and state
statutory law are “applicable law” as that term is used in the Magnuson Act.
45. Federal statutes are interpreted with the presumption that Congress intended to
retain the substance of the common law and to not preempt other state or federal laws. To
abrogate common law principles, a federal statute must speak directly to, and expressly supplant,
the common law principles that Congress intends to address.
46. Whether a person or entity owns or “controls” an asset (such as QS), whether an
entity owns another entity, and whether a person or entity controls another person or entity are
issues that are determined by long-established common law and statutory principles, such as
common law and statutes addressing corporations and agency.
47. By implementing Amendments 20 and 21 through the Regulations, and by
specifically promulgating the Control Rule, Defendants purport to regulate the control of assets,
Case 1:15-cv-05572-NJV Document 1 Filed 12/04/15 Page 11 of 18
8/20/2019 West Coast groundfish lawsuit
12/18
STOEL RIVES LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT -12-
80689554.3 0052902-00014
persons, and entities in a manner that is contradictory to and incompatible with long-established
common law principles addressing, among other subjects, ownership of corporate assets,
disregard of the corporate form, and agency, and with statutory corporate and agency principles
such as those set forth in California Corporations Code §§ 1-17713, California Civil Code Title 9
(Agency), Oregon Revised Statutes Title 7 (ORS §§ 56.006-70.990), and Revised Code of
Washington §§ 23-25.4
48. The Magnuson Act does not speak directly to, and does not expressly supplant,
any common law principles, including those referenced in paragraph 47. The Magnuson Act also
does not preempt state statutes addressing corporate and agency principles, including those
referenced in paragraph 47.
49.
By implementing Amendments 20 and 21 through the Regulations, and by
specifically promulgating the Control Rule, Defendants unlawfully abrogated and supplanted
Corporate and Agency Law without the statutory authority to do so.
50. Accordingly, Amendments 20 and 21, and the Regulations, violate the APA
because Defendants have acted in excess of their statutory authority and jurisdiction, and the
Magnuson Act because Amendments 20 and 21, and the Regulations, conflict with and are
incompatible with applicable law.
IX. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
51. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
52. NMFS purported to establish the Aggregate Limit “to prevent an inequitable
concentration of limited access privileges” and to prevent the acquisition of an “excessive share”
in the Fishery. See 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(c)(5). However, in establishing the Aggregate Limit,
NMFS relied on a study, Lian et al. (2008) (the “Study”), that bore no rational relationship to
these statutory provisions.
53. The Study was considered in a report (the “GMT Report”) that did not explain the
basis for the Study and expressly recognized that the Study’s framework arose from a “fuzzy
4 The common law and statutory principles referred to in this paragraph are collectively
referred to in this Complaint as “Corporate and Agency Law.”
Case 1:15-cv-05572-NJV Document 1 Filed 12/04/15 Page 12 of 18
8/20/2019 West Coast groundfish lawsuit
13/18
STOEL RIVES LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT -13-
80689554.3 0052902-00014
baseline.” As a result, the GMT Report tentatively provided NMFS with “observations,” not
recommendations.
54. In establishing the Aggregate Limit, NMFS did not account for, or explain the
deficiencies of, the Study or the GMT Report. NMFS did not sufficiently vet or consistently
apply the Study or the GMT Report. As expressly noted in the GMT Report, the Study’s model
was not used to assess results for other alternatives being considered.
55. NMFS did not explain its disparate treatment of the offshore and shorebased
sectors of the West Coast groundfish fishery, especially as related to NMFS’s setting of control
limits significantly higher for the offshore sector than for the shorebased sector.
56. NMFS did not articulate a rational connection between either the Study or the
GMT Report and NMFS’s decision to set the Aggregate Limit at 2.7%. NMFS did not otherwise
rationally explain, or support with sufficient record evidence, its decision to set the Aggregate
Limit at 2.7%.
57. Accordingly, NMFS’s decision to set the Aggregate Limit at 2.7% was arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to applicable law, in violation of the APA and the
Magnuson Act.
X. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
58. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
59. NMFS failed to sufficiently explain whether and how Amendments 20 and 21, and
the Regulations, including the Control Rule and NMFS’s decision to establish the Aggregate
Limit at 2.7%, would achieve optimum yield, minimize bycatch, impact fishing communities
(compared to the other alternatives being considered), efficiently utilize fishery resources,
minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication, be reasonably calculated to promote
conservation, be fair and equitable, prevent excessive shares, or be consistent with any other
National Standards. NMFS generally failed to sufficiently explain whether and how
Amendments 20 and 21, and the Regulations, are consistent with each of the Magnuson Act’s
National Standards, 16 U.S.C. § 1851(a), or with the goals and objectives of Amendment 20.
Case 1:15-cv-05572-NJV Document 1 Filed 12/04/15 Page 13 of 18
8/20/2019 West Coast groundfish lawsuit
14/18
STOEL RIVES LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT -14-
80689554.3 0052902-00014
60. NMFS did not sufficiently explain whether and how QS allocations made under
the IFQ Program were fair and equitable, why aggregate QS above 2.7% is “excessive,” and how
and why the Control Rule prevents excessive shares, and provides for fair and equitable
distribution of privileges, in a manner that is consistent with all applicable laws.
61. In approving Amendments 20 and 21, and in promulgating the Regulations,
particularly the Control Rule and the Aggregate Limit, NMFS failed to comply with the
Magnuson Act’s LAPP requirements, 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(c). Amendment 20 and 21, and the
Regulations, are not consistent with the National Standards or with the goals and objectives of
Amendment 20.
62. Accordingly, Amendments 20 and 21, and the Regulations, including the
Aggregate Limit and Control Rule, violate the Magnuson Act, and are arbitrary and capricious
and not in accordance with law in violation of the APA.
XI. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
63. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
64. As described above, NMFS failed to give sufficient notice that the IFQ Program
would adversely affect the acquisition of permits or other interests in the Fishery before the IFQ
Program became effective. Additionally, in establishing the Buy-Back Program in 2003, NMFS
intentionally encouraged Fishery participants to take actions that would result in increased
consolidation of interests in the Fishery.
65. The IFQ Program was intentionally designed by NMFS to decrease consolidation
of interests in the Fishery.
66. NMFS’s encouragement of actions to consolidate interests in the Fishery, its
failure to provide sufficient notice that acquisition of interests in the Fishery would be adversely
affected by the IFQ Program, and its failure to sufficiently consider the LAPP requirements stated
in 16 U.S.C. § 1853a(c)(5)(A) renders its approval of Amendments 20 and 21 and its issuance of
the Regulations, without including a grandfather clause or another mechanism to preserve
interests in the Fishery acquired prior to implementation of the IFQ Program, arbitrary and
capricious and not in accordance with law in violation of the APA and the Magnuson Act.
Case 1:15-cv-05572-NJV Document 1 Filed 12/04/15 Page 14 of 18
8/20/2019 West Coast groundfish lawsuit
15/18
8/20/2019 West Coast groundfish lawsuit
16/18
STOEL RIVES LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT -16-
80689554.3 0052902-00014
76. NMFS did not consider whether proportional revocation and other aspects of the
November 2015 Rule were consistent with the FMP’s mandates, including to (a) accommodate
existing fisheries sectors, (b) minimize bycatch and impact to habitat, (c) maintain stability in
landings, (d) avoid overfishing, and (e) take into account historical dependence on the Fishery.
77. NMFS also failed to consider whether proportional revocation and all other aspects
of the November 2015 Rule were consistent with the goals and objectives of Amendments 20 and
21, including to (a) increase net economic benefits, (b) create individual economic stability, (c)
provide for full utilization of the trawl sector allocation, (d) consider environmental impacts, (e)
achieve individual accountability of catch and bycatch, and (f) take into account historical
dependence on the Fishery.
78.
In promulgating the November 2015 Rule, NMFS did not consider whether
proportional revocation and all other aspects of the November 2015 Rule were consistent with
each of the Magnuson Act’s National Standards, 16 U.S.C. § 1851(a).
79. The November 2015 Rule, including the provisions for proportional revocation,
are not consistent with the Magnuson Act’s National Standards, including those that require
NMFS to use “the best scientific information available [which includes economic and social
data],” “achieve optimum yield,” “consider efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources,”
“minimize costs,” “minimize adverse impacts on fishing communities,” and “minimize bycatch.”
The November 2015 Rule is also not consistent with the goals and objectives of Amendment 20.
80. NMFS failed to perform the review required under NEPA to evaluate the
environmental impacts of the November 2015 Rule or to otherwise determine that any such
impacts were not “significant,” in violation of NEPA.
81. In promulgating the November 2015 Rule, NMFS refused to delay the divestiture
deadline until after the reallocation of widow rockfish, despite repeated requests that NMFS do
so. The reallocation of widow rockfish will significantly affect the calculation used to determine
whether a person or entity exceeds the Aggregate Limit. NMFS’s refusal to postpone the
divestiture deadline until after the reallocation of widow rockfish required certain participants,
including Pacific Fishing and Sea Princess, to divest of QS that is imputed to them under the
Case 1:15-cv-05572-NJV Document 1 Filed 12/04/15 Page 16 of 18
8/20/2019 West Coast groundfish lawsuit
17/18
STOEL RIVES LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT -17-
80689554.3 0052902-00014
Regulations before November 30, 2015, without the benefit or knowledge of how widow rockfish
will be reallocated and based upon calculations that do not consider the widow rockfish
reallocation. NMFS may reallocate additional species, with similar adverse results on Fishery
participants who had to divest of QS before November 30, 2015.
82. NMFS’s refusal to postpone the divestiture deadline until after the reallocation of
widow rockfish is inconsistent with the Magnuson Act’s National Standards, including those
requiring NMFS to “minimize costs” and “efficiently utilize fishery resources,” and therefore
violates the Magnuson Act. NMFS’s refusal is also arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of
discretion in violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
83. In issuing the November 2015 Rule, the Council did not consider, and NMFS did
not consider or acknowledge that the Council failed to consider, the implementation of an auction
system in lieu of a proportional redistribution scheme, in violation of the Magnuson Act, 16
U.S.C. § 1853a(d).
84. The November 2015 Rule unlawfully implements regulations (specifically, the
October 2010 Rule and the December 2010 Rule) that, as set forth above, violate the Magnuson
Act, NEPA, and the APA.
85.
Accordingly, the November 2015 Rule is arbitrary and capricious, in excess of
NMFS’s statutory authority, and not in accordance with applicable law, in violation of the APA
and the Magnuson Act.
XIV. RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court:
A. Expedite consideration of this matter “in every possible way” in accordance with
16 U.S.C. § 1855(f)(4);
B. Declare that Defendants, in implementing the IFQ Program through the
Regulations and Amendments 20 and 21, violated the APA, the Magnuson Act, and NEPA;
C. Vacate and remand the Regulations and Amendments 20 and 21 to NMFS;
D. Reinstate any QS that was divested by any of the Plaintiffs;
Case 1:15-cv-05572-NJV Document 1 Filed 12/04/15 Page 17 of 18
8/20/2019 West Coast groundfish lawsuit
18/18
STOEL RIVES LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT -18-
E. Award Plaintiffs reasonable attorney fees, costs, expenses, and disbursements,
including attorney fees associated with this litigation, as appropriate under applicable law; and
F. Award Plaintiffs such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and
equitable.
DATED: December 4, 2015.
STOEL RIVES LLP
By:/s/ Edward C. DuckersEDWARD C. DUCKERSAttorneys for PlaintiffsSea Princess, LLC; Pacific Choice Seafood
Company; Pacific Fishing, LLC
Case 1:15-cv-05572-NJV Document 1 Filed 12/04/15 Page 18 of 18