Saving Seafood

High court declines to hear fishing monitor case

Fisherman: Justices ruled on technicalities, not merits

October 3, 2017 — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear New Hampshire fisherman David Goethel’s case that challenged the federal government’s ability to force commercial fishermen to pay the costs of at-sea monitoring.

The rejection by the Supreme Court is the third defeat suffered by Goethel and co-plaintiff South Dartmouth-based Northeast Fishing Sector XIII since they first sued NOAA Fisheries and other federal officials in December 2015 in U.S. District Court in New Hampshire.

The court’s rejection closes the door on this particular legal challenge of the government’s right to impose the cost of at-sea monitoring on commercial fishermen, as the Supreme Court also declined to remand the case back to a lower court.

“The Supreme Court was our last judicial hope to save the centuries-old New England industry,” Goethel said in a statement.

Later, in an interview, Goethel let loose against what he said is the “stacked deck” of standing up to regulators, as well as his frustration with the justice system.

“We had three chances and not once was our case decided on the merits,” Goethel said. “I’m bitterly disappointed with the government and I’m bitterly disappointed with the justice system. At each step of the way, our fate was decided by a technicality without ever having a hearing on the merits of the case.”

Read the full story at the Gloucester Times

Fisherman appeals case over monitoring costs

September 23, 2016 — New Hampshire fisherman David Goethel is looking to the federal appeals court to overturn a federal judge’s ruling that allows NOAA Fisheries to impose the cost of at-sea monitoring on Northeast groundfish permit holders.

Goethel, represented by lawyers from the Cause of Action watchdog group, has filed an appeal with the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, hoping to reverse U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Laplante’s July 29 ruling in Goethel’s lawsuit that granted summary judgment to the federal government.

“NOAA lacks the authority to require industry funding for at-sea monitors. Its decision to do so violates federal statutes and the Constitution,” said Alfred Lechner Jr., president and chief executive officer of Cause of Action as well as a former federal judge. “Our clients had a legal right to their day in court at the time they filed suit. The decision holding otherwise is an error. An appeal from the decision of the district court has been filed.”

The original lawsuit, filed by Goethel and the South Dartmouth-based Northeast Fishing Sector 13 last December in U.S. District Court in Concord, New Hampshire, claimed the federal government violated fishermen’s constitutional rights by mandating they pay for the at-sea monitoring coverage designed to make sure fishermen are adhering to the intricacies of the federal fishery management regulations.

Read the full story at the Newbury Port Daily News

No ruling yet in at-sea monitoring lawsuit

May 17, 2016 — There still has been no decision in the federal lawsuit brought by New Hampshire fisherman David Goethel and his Northeast Fishing Sector 13 to bar NOAA Fisheries from making permit holders pay for at-sea monitoring.

The last significant acts of the case, which was filed Dec. 9 in U.S. District Court in Concord, New Hampshire, occurred in early March, when both sides filed motions for summary judgment with U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Laplante.

Laplante took those motions for summary judgment under advisement. Then, except for a few incidents of legal housekeeping, there has been nothing but judicial silence.

Neither side in the dispute agreed to speak on the record Monday regarding the extensive delay or what it could mean to the case’s ultimate outcome.

“We believe that the hearing went well,” Alfred Lechner Jr., president and chief executive officer of Cause of Action Institute — which is providing legal guidance to Goethel in the case — said in a statement. “Our clients were provided the opportunity to tell their story and outline how these regulations impact their business and are making it difficult for fishermen in New England to earn a living. The judge listened to what they had to say.”

Read the full story at the Gloucester Times

Federal judge denies fisherman’s motion to block shift of monitoring costs to fishermen

January 28, 2016 —  A federal judge has denied a New Hampshire fisherman’s motion for a preliminary injunction that would have halted NOAA Fisheries’ plan to shift the cost of the at-sea monitoring program to fishermen.

U.S. District Judge Joseph J. Laplante, sitting in Concord, New Hampshire, ruled Wednesday that New Hampshire fisherman David Goethel’s claims for injunctive relief in his suit against the U.S. Department of Commerce and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are barred by the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

“Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction is denied,” Laplante wrote in his ruling.

Goethel, owner of the 44-foot fishing trawler Ellen Diane out of Hampton, and Northeast Fishing Sector 13 are suing the federal agencies and administrators, claiming NOAA’s plans to shift the cost of at-sea monitoring (ASM) to permit holders is illegal and will put fishermen out of business.

Saving Seafood Editor’s Note: The following clarification was provided by David Goethel, a primary plaintiff in the lawsuit:

The Judge gave a narrow preliminary ruling that denied the availability of a particular kind of preliminary injunctive relief. He ruled that he could not issue an injunction to stop the National Marine Fisheries Service from charging the fishermen for At-Sea-monitoring until the merits of the case were decided. The court said nothing about the merits of the case — specifically, nothing at all about the legality of industry funding for ASM — and we are working to get the merits decision as quickly as possible. Meanwhile the Court denied the government’s motion to transfer the case to Boston, Massachusetts, so we can hope that he will want to reach the merits soon.  We are still fighting to prevent industry funding from kicking in. A court date has not been set for a hearing on the merits of our case, but the Judge did set a date for the government to provide the administrative record and honor a Freedom of Information request for all documents and emails written in regards to at-sea monitoring.

Read the full story at Gloucester Daily Times