ELR Citation: 43 ELR 20098
No(s). 11-cv-00293-JCS (N.D. Cal. Apr 22, 2013) (Spero, J.)

A district court dismissed with leave to amend environmental groups' lawsuit against EPA alleging that it violated the ESA by failing to undertake required consultations regarding the effects of 382 registered pesticides on endangered and threatened species. The groups seek a broad remedy—an injunction mandating EPA to consult with FWS regarding the registration and oversight of 382 pesticides. But the groups have not even pled the “general factual allegations” giving rise to each individual ESA claim, nor have they asserted individual ESA claims. In addition, the provision of FIFRA §16 appears to confer jurisdiction in this case because the groups' allegations attack the substance of the EPA's pesticide registrations. If the groups file an amended complaint, they must plead facts showing the specific affirmative acts or orders of EPA that they allege with respect to each pesticide. They must also plead facts showing standing with respect to each pesticide. And finally, they must plead facts showing how the court has jurisdiction under FIFRA §16(a) for the affirmative actions alleged--or that the specific affirmative acts fall outside the ambit of FIFRA §16 and within the ambit of the ESA's citizen suit provision.