Untitled

Case: 10-17335 04/06/2011 Page: 1 of 7 ID: 7706026 DktEntry: 65
No. 10-17335,
(consolidated with Nos. 10-17719, 10-17722)
______________________
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
______________________
CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, et al.,
Plaintiff-Appellees.
v.
THOMAS J. VILSACK, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States
Department of Agriculture; et al.,
Defendants-Appellants
and
MONSANTO COMPANY, et al.,
Intervenor-Defendant-Appellants.
______________________
ON APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case Nos. 08-civ-484, 10-civ-4038
______________________
INTERVENOR-APPELLANTS’ MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
OF APPEAL (No. 10-17335)
______________________
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), undersigned
Intervenor-Defendants hereby move for voluntary dismissal of one of their appeals
in this consolidated matter. In support of this motion, Petitioners declare as
follows:
1. Intervenor-Appellants seek dismissal only of their appeal in 10-17335
(“Sugarbeets I”), not in 10-17719.

2. Intervenor-Appellants’ appeal in Sugarbeets I addresses the district
court’s denial of their intervention as defendants in the merits phase of a claim
brought under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), which
challenged the Government’s unconditional “deregulation” of Roundup Ready
sugarbeets (“RRSB”). The Sugarbeets I appeal sought a reversal of the denial of
intervention and a vacatur of the district court’s judgment vacating the
Government’s unconditional deregulation of RRSB.
3. Intervenor-Appellants’ need for resolution of the Sugarbeets I appeal has
been substantially diminished for the following three reasons:
First, after the appeal in Sugarbeets I was filed, this Court decided
Wilderness Society v. United States Forest Service, 630 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2011)
(en banc), which eliminated the Court’s prior bar on intervention in the merits
phase of NEPA cases. See id. at 1180 (“We now abandon the ‘federal defendant’
rule. When considering motions to intervene of right under Rule 24(a)(2), courts
need no longer apply a categorical prohibition on intervention on the merits, or
liability phase, of NEPA actions.”). That holding diminished Intervenor-
Appellants’ systemic interest in the resolution of the Sugarbeets I appeal.
Second, on February 4, 2011, shortly before the argument in Sugarbeets I,
the Government promulgated interim measures to allow the planting of RRSB seed
and root crops, and it has since granted permits that allow commercial planting of
2
RRSB seed crops pursuant to interim conditions. Because these intervening
actions allow Intervenor-Appellants to plant RRSB crops (albeit with some new
restrictions), they substantially diminish Intervenor-Appellants’ need for appellate
review of the district court’s vacatur of the Government’s prior unconditional
deregulation order.
Third, this Court’s decision in Sugarbeets II (Nos. 10-17719 & 10-17722)
further reduced the need for a decision in Sugarbeets I. If Intervenor-Appellants
had prevailed in Sugarbeets I while Sugarbeets II was still pending, that would
have provided an additional ground for reversal in Sugarbeets II. Because this
Court has already reversed the preliminary injunction in Sugarbeets II, Intervenor-
Appellants no longer need to pursue a decision in Sugarbeets I in order to protect
their interests in Sugarbeets II. See Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack, __ F.3d__,
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3790 (9th Cir. Feb. 25, 2011).
7. Counsel for Intervenor-Appellants have communicated with counsel for
Plaintiffs, who has represented that Plaintiffs do not oppose this motion provided
that the parties bear their own costs in the consolidated appeals (Sugarbeets I and
the Sugarbetts II), an arrangement that is satisfactory to Intervenor-Appellants as
well. Federal Defendants have no objection to this motion or to that arrangement
with respect to the costs incurred in the consolidated appeals.
3
For the reasons stated above, Intervenor-Appellants respectfully move for
voluntary dismissal of their appeal in No. 10-17335, with all parties to bear their
own costs in the consolidated appeals.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Richard P. Bress
Stanley H. Abramson Richard P. Bress*
Rachel G. Lattimore Philip J. Perry
Arent Fox LLP Drew C. Ensign
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Latham & Watkins LLP
Washington, DC 20036-5339 555 11th Street, NW, Suite 1000
Telephone: (202) 857-6000 Washington, DC 20004
Facsimile: (202) 857-6395 Telephone: (202) 637-2200
Email: abramson.stanley@arentfox.com Facsimile: (202) 637-2201
Email: lattimore.rachel@arentfox.com Email: richard.bress@lw.com
Email: phil.perry@lw.com
Email: drew.ensign@lw.com
Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant Monsanto Company
* I certify that parties listed below concur with the filing of this document.
Joanne Lichtman Gilbert S. Keteltas

Baker Hostetler LLP John F. Bruce
550 South Hope Street, Suite 1100 Baker Hostetler LLP
Los Angeles, CA 90025-7120 1050 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Telephone: (310) 820-8800 Washington, D.C. 20036-5304
Facsimile: (213) 820-8859 Telephone: (202) 861-1530
Email: jlichtman@bakerlaw.com Facsimile: (202) 861-1783
Email: gketeltas@bakerlaw.com
Email: jbruce@bakerlaw.com
Christopher H. Marraro
McKenna Long & Aldrich LLP
1900 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 496 - 7356
Facsimile: (202) 496 - 7756
Email: cmarraro@mckennalong.com
4
Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant-Appellants American Sugarbeet Growers

Association, Ervin Schlemmer, Mark Wettstein, Duane Grant, John Snyder, Jr.,
United States Beet Sugar Association, American Crystal Sugar Company, The
Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC, Western Sugar Cooperative and Wyoming
Sugar Company LLC
David J. Lazerwitz Nancy Bryson

Farella Braun + Martel LLP John A. Bryson
235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor Alison M. Suthers
San Francisco, CA 94104 Holland & Hart LLP
Telephone: (415) 954-4400 975 F Street, NW, Suite 900
Facsimile: (415) 954-4480 Washington, DC 20004
Email: dlazerwitz@fbm.com Telephone: (202) 654-6921
Facsimile: (202) 747-6567
Email: nbryson@hollandhart.com
Email: jbryson@hollandhart.com
Email: amsuthers@hollandhart.com
Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant Syngenta Seeds, Inc.
Daniel Murphy Daniel M. Abuhoff

W. Allan Edmiston Harry Zirlin
Loeb & Loeb LLP Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
10100 Santa Monica Blvd., 22nd Floor 919 Third Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90067 New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (310) 282-2000 Telephone: (212) 909-6000
Facsimile: (310) 282-2200 Facsimile: (212) 909-6836
Email: dmurphy@loeb.com Email: dmabuhof@debevoise.com
Email: aedmiston@loeb.com Email: hzirlin@debevoise.com
Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant Betaseed, Inc.
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Richard P. Bress, hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing
Intervenor-Appellants’ Motion For Voluntary Dismissal Of Appeal (No. 10-17335)
with the Clerk of Court for the United Sates Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
by using the appellate CM/ECF system on April 6, 2011.
Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by
the appellate CM/ECF system.
I further certify that some of the participants in the case are not registered
CM/ECF users. I have caused a copy of the foregoing document to be sent by
FedEx next business day delivery to the following non-CM/ECF participants:
Eric Womack
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Room 6118
Washington, D.C. 20530
Telephone: (202) 514-4505
Fax: (202) 616-8460
Email: eric.womack@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Federal Defendants-Appellees
s/ Richard P. Bress
Richard P. Bress

Untitled

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Untitled

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case: 10-17335 04/06/2011 Page: 1 of 7 ID: 7706026 DktEntry: 65

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), undersigned

Intervenor-Defendants hereby move for voluntary dismissal of one of their appeals

in this consolidated matter. In support of this motion, Petitioners declare as

1. Intervenor-Appellants seek dismissal only of their appeal in 10-17335

(“Sugarbeets I”), not in 10-17719.

2. Intervenor-Appellants’ appeal in Sugarbeets I addresses the district

court’s denial of their intervention as defendants in the merits phase of a claim

brought under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), which

challenged the Government’s unconditional “deregulation” of Roundup Ready

sugarbeets (“RRSB”). The Sugarbeets I appeal sought a reversal of the denial of

intervention and a vacatur of the district court’s judgment vacating the

Government’s unconditional deregulation of RRSB.

3. Intervenor-Appellants’ need for resolution of the Sugarbeets I appeal has

been substantially diminished for the following three reasons:

need no longer apply a categorical prohibition on intervention on the merits, or

liability phase, of NEPA actions.”). That holding diminished Intervenor-

Appellants’ systemic interest in the resolution of the Sugarbeets I appeal.

Second, on February 4, 2011, shortly before the argument in Sugarbeets I,

RRSB seed crops pursuant to interim conditions. Because these intervening

restrictions), they substantially diminish Intervenor-Appellants’ need for appellate

review of the district court’s vacatur of the Government’s prior unconditional

Third, this Court’s decision in Sugarbeets II (Nos. 10-17719 & 10-17722)

further reduced the need for a decision in Sugarbeets I. If Intervenor-Appellants

Appellants no longer need to pursue a decision in Sugarbeets I in order to protect

7. Counsel for Intervenor-Appellants have communicated with counsel for

the Sugarbetts II), an arrangement that is satisfactory to Intervenor-Appellants as

well. Federal Defendants have no objection to this motion or to that arrangement

with respect to the costs incurred in the consolidated appeals.

For the reasons stated above, Intervenor-Appellants respectfully move for

own costs in the consolidated appeals.

Joanne Lichtman Gilbert S. Keteltas

Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant-Appellants American Sugarbeet Growers

David J. Lazerwitz Nancy Bryson

Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant Syngenta Seeds, Inc.

Daniel Murphy Daniel M. Abuhoff

Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant Betaseed, Inc.

I, Richard P. Bress, hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing

Intervenor-Appellants’ Motion For Voluntary Dismissal Of Appeal (No. 10-17335)

by using the appellate CM/ECF system on April 6, 2011.

the appellate CM/ECF system.

CM/ECF users. I have caused a copy of the foregoing document to be sent by

FedEx next business day delivery to the following non-CM/ECF participants:

Counsel for Federal Defendants-Appellees

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi