Otay Mesa Property, L.P. v. United States Department of the Interior
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
646 F.3d 914 (2011)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
In 1997, the Fish and Wildlife Service (the FWS) (defendant) listed the San Diego fairy shrimp as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Fairy shrimp were ant-sized aquatic animals that lived in seasonal pools of coastal water for about 30 days. The fairy shrimp might lay dormant eggs in vernal pools. In 2001, an environmental-consulting company surveyed a large stretch of land along the California–Mexico border, searching for fairy shrimp. The company conducted eight surveys in the first half of 2001 when vernal pools were normally full and fairy shrimp could be found. On a single occasion, the company observed four adult fairy shrimp “in a tire rut on a dirt road” on land belonging to Otay Mesa Property L.P., Rancho Vista Del Mar, and Otay International LLC (collectively, Otay Mesa) (plaintiffs). Based on that one sighting, in 2007 the FWS designated 143 acres of Otay Mesa’s private property as “critical habitat” for the fairy shrimp. The FWS maintained that Otay Mesa’s property was “occupied” by the endangered species in 1997. Otay Mesa sued the FWS to challenge the critical-habitat designation. The district court granted summary judgment to the FWS despite noting weak support for the FWS’s designation. Otay Mesa appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kavanaugh, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
