Opinion
CV-20-00461-TUC-JGZ
06-21-2021
Center for Biological Diversity, et al., Plaintiffs, v. David Bernhardt, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Honorable Jennifer G. Zipps United Stales District Judge
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint. (Doc. 18.) The motion is fully briefed. (Docs. 19, 21.) After consideration of the parties' briefing, the Court will grant the motion.
I. Background
In this action, Plaintiffs challenge the issuance of twelve leopard import permits, asserting FWS acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and contrary to law when it (1) did not consider the required factors set forth in 50 C.F.R. § 23.61, (2) failed to use the best available biological information, and (3) did not take precautionary measures and made a non-detriment finding where insufficient information was provided and the factors were not met. (Doc. 10 at 57-62.) Plaintiffs seek to supplement the complaint with three additional leopard import permits that were authorized after the complaint was filed, challenging these additional permits on the same grounds as those in the original complaint.
II. Discussion
“On motion and reasonable notice, the court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(d). The purpose of supplemental pleadings is to “promote as complete an adjudication of the dispute between the parties as is possible.” LaSalvia v. United Dairymen of Arizona, 804 F.2d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). Motions to amend pursuant to Rule 15(d) should be granted so long as there is “some relationship . . . between the newly alleged matters and the subject matter of the original action.” Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 474 (9th Cir. 1988). However, motions to amend should not be granted if “undue prejudice to the opposing party will result.” LaSalvia, 804 F.2d at 1119.
Applying these standards, the Court will grant the motion to supplement the complaint. The Court finds, and Plaintiffs and Federal Defendants agree, that there is a sufficient relationship between the additional leopard permits authorized after the complaint that are to be supplemented and the subject matter of the original complaint, as Plaintiffs seek to challenge the newly alleged permits on the same grounds. The Court further finds supplementing the complaint with the additional leopard permits will promote as complete an adjudication of the dispute between the parties as possible and will not prejudice Defendants in light of the current stage of the proceedings.
Incorporating arguments from their motion to dismiss, Defendants assert that the Court should deny the motion to supplement on futility grounds for lack of standing. Because the Court has found that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged standing, the Court finds that the proposed supplemental pleading will not be futile.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint (Doc. 18) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file the Supplemental Complaint within three (3) days of the date of this Order.