SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. — Pesticide makers have filed a motion to have a lawsuit dismissed that charges hundreds of pesticide registrations are invalid because they are in violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

The lawsuit, brought by the Center for Biological Diversity and Pesticide Action Network of North America (PANNA) in January 2011, is against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is charged with evaluating and registering pesticides. CropLife America (CLA), an association representing pesticide makers, intervened in the lawsuit to have it dismissed.

“For decades, the EPA has turned a blind eye to the disastrous effects pesticides can have on some of America’s rarest species,” said Jeff Miller of the Center for Biological Diversity on the day the suit was filed. “This lawsuit is intended to force the EPA to follow the law and ensure that harmful chemicals are not sprayed in endangered species habitats.”

According to PANNA, the EPA is required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service regarding pesticides that could harm animal species covered by the ESA. The crux of its legal argument is that EPA has “consistently failed to engage in required consultations” to determine whether pesticides it registers are harmful to the animals in question. These animals include the Florida panther, California condor, piping plover, black-footed ferret, Indiana bat and many others.

In its motion for dismissal filed on Feb. 21, 2012, in U.S. district court in San Francisco, the CLA describes PANNA’s complaint as a “direct attack on the registration and re-registration decisions authorizing the use” of the registered products.

The motion says the complaint should be dismissed for a number of reasons: that the lawsuit was filed in the wrong court, the statute of limitations has expired, the EPA didn’t do anything to trigger an obligation on its part to consult with the other agencies and the plaintiffs make statements and draw conclusions but have no facts with any “heft” that would make their arguments plausible.

The motion says the federal courts of appeal, not district courts, have sole jurisdiction to consider challenges “where EPA has issued an order following a public hearing.” It also says any challenge to an EPA registration decision has to be made within 60 days of that decision, and that in a case where there might be an exception to the 60-day rule, the statute of limitations can’t in any event be any longer than six years.

It also says because of these time constraints plaintiffs don’t have a case, since almost all the pesticides in question were approved longer than six years before the lawsuit was filed.

The motion also states the EPA hasn’t done anything that would be considered an action triggering an obligation on its part to consult with the services in question. It says an action like that must be “affirmative,” meaning the issuing of a license.

Since EPA issued its registrations to the hundreds of pesticides it approved many years ago, it hasn’t done anything since then that would trigger an obligation to have a consultation, according to the motion. The EPA has the authority to exercise “discretionary control” over products it oversees without having to consult with these other agencies, the motion says.

The motion also states some of the claims made in the lawsuit are so lacking in a factual basis that they should be dismissed for that reason, as well. “The absence of any factual allegations even addressing other elements of EPA’s purported errors also is fatal,” it reads.

The CLA has asked the court to consider its motion to dismiss by early April. Mary Emma Young, a spokeswoman for the CLA, said the lawsuit has the “potential to cause serious, wide-ranging effects” on agriculture across the country.

“In attempting to restrict the use of more than 380 active ingredients, which the agricultural industry uses in its farming operations and applications, growers could lose access to a broad portfolio of crop protection products,” she said.

Telephone messages left with both PANNA and the Center for Biological Diversity on the latest development went unreturned as of last Friday.