State of California v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: November 5, 2019
• Docket: 4:18-cv-03237
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Case No. 18-cv-03237-HSG

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS RULE 60(B) MOTION TO ALTER 9 v. JUDGMENT

10 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL Re: Dkt. No. 109 PROTECTION AGENCY, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 After the Court’s May 6, 2019 Order granting in part Plaintiffs’ motion for summary 14 judgment (Dkt. No. 98, “Order”), Defendants U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Andrew 15 R. Wheeler, in his official capacity as Acting Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection 16 Agency (collectively, “EPA”) filed the instant motion seeking relief from the Court’s Order and 17 Judgment (Dkt. No. 99) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5). 1 Specifically, EPA 18 argues that because the EPA Administrator signed a final rule on August 16, 2019, changing the 19 submission deadline for state plans from May 30, 2017, to August 29, 2019, and changing EPA’s 20 timeline to promulgate a federal plan from within six months of the submission deadline to within 21 two years of the submission deadline, these significant changes in facts and law warrant a revision 22 of the Court’s May 6, 2019 Order and Judgment. The Court disagrees and DENIES EPA’s 23 motion. 24 25

26 1 Plaintiffs are eight states: the State of California, by and through the Attorney General and the California Air Resources Board; the State of Illinois; the State of Maryland; the State of New 27 Mexico; the State of Oregon; the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; the State of Rhode Island; and I. BACKGROUND 1 As relevant for the pending motion, on August 29, 2016, EPA promulgated a final rule 2 related to Municipal Solid Waste landfills.2 Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for 3 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 81 Fed. Reg. 59,276 (Aug. 29, 2016) (“Old Rule”). The Old 4 Rule became effective on October 28, 2016. Thereafter, according to EPA’s regulations: 5 1. States were required to submit implementation plans by May 6 30, 2017, see 40 C.F.R. § 60.23(a)(1); 2. EPA was required to approve or disapprove submitted plans 7 by September 30, 2017, see 40 C.F.R. § 60.27(b); and 3. If either (i) states to which the guideline pertained did not 8 submit implementation plans, or (ii) EPA disapproved a submitted plan, then EPA was required to promulgate a federal plan within six 9 months of the submission deadline (November 30, 2017), see 40 C.F.R. § 60.27(d). 10 The parties agreed that EPA failed to fulfill certain non-discretionary duties under 40 11 C.F.R. § 60.27, and after finding that Plaintiffs had standing to bring suit, the Court granted partial 12 summary judgment for Plaintiffs. Dkt. No. 98. Specifically, the Court ordered the EPA to 13 approve or disapprove existing state plans no later than September 6, 2019, and to promulgate 14 regulations setting forth a federal plan no later than November 6, 2019. Id. at 15–16. According 15 to EPA’s status report filed on August 7, 2019, it was complying with the Court’s Order by 16 making progress on approving or disapproving existing state plans. See Dkt. No. 108. On August 17 22, 2019, EPA published notice of the proposed federal plan. See Federal Plan Requirements for 18 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills That Commenced Construction On or Before July 17, 2014, and 19 Have Not Been Modified or Reconstructed Since July 17, 2014, 84 Fed. Reg. 43,745 (Aug. 22, 20 2019) (“Proposed Federal Plan”). 21 On August 16, 2019, EPA amended its regulations to change the applicable deadlines. 22 States must now “submit a state plan to the EPA by August 29, 2019,” pushing the deadline back 23 over two years. 40 C.F.R. § 60.30f (“New Rule”). Additionally, EPA amended the regulations 24 applicable to the Administrator’s actions as follows: 25 (c) The Administrator will promulgate, through notice-and-comment 26 rulemaking, a federal plan, or portion thereof, at any time within two 27 years after the Administrator: 1 (1) Finds that a State fails to submit a required plan or plan revision or finds that the plan or plan revision does not satisfy 2 the minimum criteria under paragraph (g) of this section; or (2) Disapproves the required State plan or plan revision or any 3 portion thereof, as unsatisfactory because the applicable requirements of this subpart or an applicable subpart under 4 this part have not been met. 5 40 C.F.R. § 60.27a(c) (emphasis added). EPA promptly filed this Motion to Amend Order and 6 Judgment on August 28, 2019, for which briefing is complete. Dkt. Nos. 109 (“Mot.”), 114 7 (“Opp.”), 116 (“Reply”). EPA asks the Court to vacate its order and judgment that requires EPA 8 to promulgate a federal plan by November 6, 2019. See generally Mot.3 The Court held a hearing 9 on the motion to amend order and judgment on October 24, 2019. Dkt. No. 120. 10 II. LEGAL STANDARD 11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), in relevant part, provides that “the court may relieve 12 a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following 13 reason[]: (5) . . . applying [the judgment] prospectively is no longer equitable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 14 60(b)(5). “[T]he Rule codifies the courts’ traditional authority, ‘inherent in the jurisdiction of the 15 chancery,’ to modify or vacate the prospective effect of their decrees.” Bellevue Manor Assocs. v. 16 United States, 165 F.3d 1249, 1252 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 17 106, 114 (1932)). 18 The Ninth Circuit has established a two-part standard to modify a final judgment or order 19 under Rule 60(b)(5). First, the “party seeking modification of [an order] bears the burden of 20 establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree.” Rufo v. 21 Inmates of Suffolk Cty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 383 (1992). Once this initial burden is met, the “district 22 court must then determine whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to resolve the 23 problems created by the changed factual or legal conditions.” United States v. Asarco Inc., 430 24 F.3d 972, 979–80 (9th Cir. 2005). In making its determination, the Court may “take all the 25 circumstances into account in determining whether to modify or vacate a prior [order or 26 judgment].” Bellevue Manor, 165 F.3d at 1256. 27 III. ANALYSIS 1 In bringing a Rule 60(b) motion, EPA asks the Court to determine whether its own 2 amendment of a federal rule constitutes “a significant change in facts or law” that warrants the 3 revision of the Court’s Order. In its discretion, the Court finds that the situation presented here, 4 where EPA undisputedly violated the Old Rule, received an unfavorable judgment, and then 5 issued the New Rule only to reset its non-discretionary deadline (rather than to remedy its 6 violation), does not render the judgment inequitable. 7 EPA contends that “[w]hen a change in the law authorizes what had previously been 8 forbidden it is abuse of discretion for a court to refuse to modify an injunction founded on the 9 superseded law.” Am. Horse Prot. Ass’n, Inc. v. Watt, 694 F.2d 1310, 1316 (D.C. Cir. 1982); see 10 also Class v. Norton, 507 F.2d 1058, 1062 (2d Cir. 1974); McGrath v. Potash, 199 F.2d 166, 168 11 (D.C. Cir. 1952). However, the facts in American Horse and the other cases where courts have so 12 held are plainly distinguishable from the situation presented here. In each case, the change in law 13 was made by a non-party. In American Horse, an amendment of the governing federal statute by 14 Congress warranted granting the Bureau of Land Management’s motion to dissolve an injunction. 15 694 F.2d at 1319–20. In Class, a change in federal regulation extending the processing ceiling for 16 applications for Aid to Families with Dependent Children warranted relief for the state agency 17 charged with implementing the state plan. 507 F.3d at 1062. Finally, in McGrath, Congress 18 enacted a new statute, removing the statutory basis for the district court’s holding and warranting 19 relief under Rule 60(b). Here, unlike those cases, the EPA amended its own regulations after 20 numerous states filed this action to compel it to comply with its duties, after the Court found it in 21 violation of its non-discretionary duties, and after the Court issued an order detailing how the 22 agency was required to comply.4 EPA’s voluntary action here makes this case unlike those where 23 subsequent changes in law were enacted by third parties, as opposed to by the very party subject to 24 25 4 That the EPA previously alerted the Court to the then-proposed amendment does not compel a 26 different outcome. See Mot. at 3. The amendment was subject to the ordinary uncertainty of the rulemaking process, and importantly, the Court determined that Plaintiffs established harm 27 stemming from the EPA’s failure to promulgate a federal plan by November 30, 2017. See Dkt. 1 the Court’s order. 2 Nor does this case present a situation where the agency’s new regulation sought to cure the 3 deficiency identified by the Court. While “[i]t is both logical and precedented that an agency can 4 engage in new rulemaking to correct a prior rule which a court has found defective,” N.A.A.C.P., 5 Jefferson Cty. Branch v. Donovan, 737 F.2d 67, 72 (D.C. Cir. 1984), such that granting a Rule 6 60(b) motion is equitable, the Court never found the Old Rule defective. Instead, EPA, by its own 7 admission, was in violation of its regulation by failing to act. EPA then enacted the new 8 regulations, which only delay EPA’s obligations, rather than changing them. This action sidesteps 9 the Court’s order, delaying EPA’s fulfillment of unchanged obligations with no guarantee that this 10 precise situation will not occur again in two years’ time. Additionally, this scenario presents a 11 serious concern that in cases where a judgment is premised on an agency’s failure to meet 12 deadlines, that agency can perpetually evade judicial review through amendment, even after a 13 violation has been found. Cf. Tallahassee Mem’l Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. Bowen, 815 F.2d 1435, 1452 14 (11th Cir. 1987) (“Without at all wishing to suggest any improper motive on the part of the 15 [Administrator] in this case . . . , it is still a concern that [allowing modification of the Order] 16 could permit, in some future case, an abuse of the interaction between administrative agencies and 17 the courts.”). 18 Significantly, outside of Defendant’s reliance on the new amendment, all other 19 circumstances indicate that enforcement of the judgment is still equitable. See Bellevue Manor, 20 165 F.3d at 1256 (instructing the Court to “take all the circumstances into account in determining 21 whether to modify or vacate a prior [order or judgment].”). After careful consideration of EPA’s 22 representations about the phases required to conduct rulemaking for the final action on a federal 23 plan, the Court imposed a six-month deadline to promulgate a federal plan, a presumptively 24 reasonable timeframe given the previous regulation. Dkt. No. 98 at 13–14. Thus, EPA was 25 ordered to set forth a federal plan no later than November 6, 2019. Id. at 16. The Proposed 26 Federal Plan was issued on August 22, 2019, and the notice and comment period was complete as 27 of October 7, 2019. See Proposed Federal Plan, 84 Fed. Reg. 43,745. All that remains is for the 1 a significant regulatory action . . . submitted to [OMB] for review.” Jd. at 43,755. Given EPA’s 2 || significant progress and the limited work remaining on the federal plan, the record does not 3 || establish that the Court-imposed six-month deadline is no longer equitable. 4 Issuing a final federal plan also poses no obstacle to EPA’s New Rule. The New Rule 5 provided additional time for states to submit a state plan, and early issuance of a federal plan does 6 || not prevent states from submitting, and EPA from approving, new state plans. See 40 C.F.R. 7 $$ 60.27a(c), 60.30f. Instead, it imposes emissions guidelines on all states who failed to provide a 8 state plan, ensuring that the harm disclosed by Plaintiffs ceases. 9 IV. CONCLUSION 10 Finding that EPA has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that imposition of the ll Court’s Order is no longer equitable, the Court, in its discretion, DENIES EPA’s Motion to 12 || Amend Order and Judgment. The Court further STAYS the judgment for sixty days to allow 13 either party to file a notice of appeal. If no notice is filed, the stay will lift automatically on 14 || January 7, 2020. This order further terminates as MOOT Dkt. No. 123. 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. a 16 || Dated: 11/5/2019 Alapurd 5 Mbt). HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. Z 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28