UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN ... - Bizjournals

Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT Document 1 Filed 09/30/13 Page 3 of 64policies, and provisions of the MMPA; (b) imposes legal standards found nowherein law; (c) employs ad hoc and unsupportable methodologies to assess the effect ofthe collection on the wild population that have not been peer reviewed and havenot been applied to any other permit applicant; (d) ignores the best scientificinformation available; (e) illegally demands that future actions of the RussianFederation comply with Defendants’ interpretation of the MMPA, notwithstandingthe fact that the MMPA is not binding on other sovereign nations and (f) wasbased on considerations not found in the law. Defendants’ actions are arbitrary,capricious, and not in accordance with law.6. The MMPA authorizes a permit applicant to seek judicial review of anagency decision to deny a permit within 60 days of the denial. 16 U.S.C.§1374(d)(6).PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE7. This action arises under the MMPA, 16 U.S.C. §1361, et seq., and theAPA, 5 U.S.C. §§701-706.8. Plaintiff Georgia Aquarium, Inc., located in downtown Atlanta,Georgia, is a not-for-profit entity organized under the laws of the State of Georgia.Georgia Aquarium meets all legal standards to house and care for the belugawhales that are the subject of this action. Georgia Aquarium relies on community3