State of California v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

N.D. California

State of California v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

DecidedJanuary 19, 2021

Docket4:18-cv-03237

StatusUnknown

This text of State of California v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (State of California v. United States Environmental Protection Agency) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State of California v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, (N.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

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 MODIFYING JUDGMENT AND DENYING MOTION TO STAY 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 145 10 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 The Court fully incorporates the factual background from its prior order denying EPA’s 14 Rule 60(b) motion. See California v. United States EPA, No. 18-cv-03237-HSG, 2019 U.S. Dist. 15 LEXIS 192206, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2019). 16 On October 22, 2020, the Ninth Circuit reversed the Court’s order denying EPA’s Rule 17 60(b) motion to modify an injunction which required EPA to promulgate its federal landfill 18 emissions plan by November 6, 2019. California v. United States EPA, 978 F.3d 708, 719 (9th 19 Cir. 2020). EPA had promulgated new regulations changing the regulatory deadline underpinning 20 the injunction. Id. at 711. The Ninth Circuit held that “EPA’s new regulations ha[d] removed the 21 legal basis for the court’s deadline” and that the Court had “refuse[d] to modify an injunction 22 based on superseded law.” Id. at 717, 719. The Ninth Circuit remanded “with instructions for the 23 district court to modify the injunction consistent with this opinion.” Id. at 719. 24 As directed by the Ninth Circuit, the Court modifies the injunction to eliminate the 25 obligation “to promulgate regulations setting forth a federal plan, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 26 60.27(d), no later than November 6, 2019.” See California v. United States EPA, 385 F. Supp. 3d 27 903, 916 (N.D. Cal. 2019). 1 review of EPA’s new regulation in the U.S. Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit. 2 See Dkt. No. 145 at 2. On December 14, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion to stay in this case, asking 3 the Court to stay the injunction pending resolution of the petition in the D.C. Circuit. /d. But now 4 that the Court has made the modification mandated by the Ninth Circuit’s opinion, there is nothing 5 to stay, because EPA has already complied with the remainder of the injunction. Accordingly, the 6 Motion to Stay is DENIED. 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: 1/19/2021 11 7 Haspurtrd Lh, HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 12 United States District Judge

14 © 15

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 MODIFYING JUDGMENT AND DENYING MOTION TO STAY 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 145 10 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 The Court fully incorporates the factual background from its prior order denying EPA’s 14 Rule 60(b) motion. See California v. United States EPA, No. 18-cv-03237-HSG, 2019 U.S. Dist. 15 LEXIS 192206, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2019). 16 On October 22, 2020, the Ninth Circuit reversed the Court’s order denying EPA’s Rule 17 60(b) motion to modify an injunction which required EPA to promulgate its federal landfill 18 emissions plan by November 6, 2019. California v. United States EPA, 978 F.3d 708, 719 (9th 19 Cir. 2020). EPA had promulgated new regulations changing the regulatory deadline underpinning 20 the injunction. Id. at 711. The Ninth Circuit held that “EPA’s new regulations ha[d] removed the 21 legal basis for the court’s deadline” and that the Court had “refuse[d] to modify an injunction 22 based on superseded law.” Id. at 717, 719. The Ninth Circuit remanded “with instructions for the 23 district court to modify the injunction consistent with this opinion.” Id. at 719. 24 As directed by the Ninth Circuit, the Court modifies the injunction to eliminate the 25 obligation “to promulgate regulations setting forth a federal plan, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 26 60.27(d), no later than November 6, 2019.” See California v. United States EPA, 385 F. Supp. 3d 27 903, 916 (N.D. Cal. 2019). 1 review of EPA’s new regulation in the U.S. Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit. 2 See Dkt. No. 145 at 2. On December 14, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion to stay in this case, asking 3 the Court to stay the injunction pending resolution of the petition in the D.C. Circuit. /d. But now 4 that the Court has made the modification mandated by the Ninth Circuit’s opinion, there is nothing 5 to stay, because EPA has already complied with the remainder of the injunction. Accordingly, the 6 Motion to Stay is DENIED. 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: 1/19/2021 11 7 Haspurtrd Lh, HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 12 United States District Judge

14 © 15

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State of California v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-california-v-united-states-environmental-protection-agency-cand-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack