Filed October 18, 2016
Had the Judicial Officer treated the terms "interested parties" and "interested persons" as synonymous - which is essentially the position advanced by Animal Legal - he would have failed to give meaning to distinct terms ("interested parties" versus "interested persons") utilized by Congress. See Tuaua v. United States, 788 F.3d 300, 303 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ("[i]t is a well- established canon of statutory interpretation that the use of different words or terms within a statute demonstrates intent to convey a different meaning for those words"). Animal Legal has not identified any case authority establishing that this interpretation is erroneous and the limited authority addressing section 554(c) is not contradictory.