Institute for Fisheries Resources v. Continental Tire the Americas

Background

This environmental case concerns the use of N-(1,3-dimethylbutyl)-N’-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine, known as 6PPD, in vehicle tires. The plaintiffs allege that 6PPD changes into 6PPD-quinone, or 6PPD-q, when tires are used on roads and the chemical reacts with ozone and oxygen. They say runoff containing 6PPD-q is toxic to protected salmonid fish species in West Coast populations and causes an unlawful “take” under Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act.

Defendant Sumitomo Rubber USA, LLC (SRUSA), one of several tire suppliers named as defendants, sought summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the moving party argues that the record requires judgment in its favor. Another Sumitomo defendant, Sumitomo Rubber North America, Inc. (SRNA), did not seek summary judgment in this order.

SRUSA’s argument

SRUSA stated that it manufactured vehicle tires in one United States facility, located in New York, and stopped manufacturing operations and tire production there in November 2024. It stated that the cessation would be permanent. SRNA exclusively marketed, distributed, and sold the tires made by SRUSA in the United States.

SRUSA argued that the plaintiffs’ amended complaint challenged only the manufacture or distribution of tires containing 6PPD. Because SRUSA no longer manufactured tires and would not do so in the future, it argued that the plaintiffs could not prove a Section 9 claim against it. SRUSA also argued that the claim was moot because the court could not order effective relief after the company stopped manufacturing tires. A claim is moot when there is no longer a live dispute for a court to remedy.

Court’s reasoning

The court rejected SRUSA’s reading of the amended complaint. It said the complaint’s Section 9 claim concerns the ongoing discharge of 6PPD-q into aquatic environments from the use of tires manufactured by the defendants on roadways. The alleged harm results when vehicles drive or park on streets, roads, highways, parking lots, and alleys, allowing 6PPD-q to become toxic runoff. Therefore, SRUSA’s ending of tire manufacturing did not definitively resolve the claim because its previously manufactured tires could continue to be used on roadways.

The court also rejected SRUSA’s argument that no effective injunction could be issued. It noted that relief might require SRUSA to obtain a permit for ongoing 6PPD-q discharges from tires it had already manufactured, including funding measures to reduce continuing harm from runoff. The court said SRUSA did not meaningfully rebut that possibility or otherwise show that no relief could be available.

The court further concluded that SRUSA had not met the heavy burden of showing that the alleged wrongful conduct could not reasonably be expected to recur. Its statement that it could not reasonably be expected to make tires again in the United States was not enough, particularly given factual disputes raised by the plaintiffs.

Disposition

Judge James Donato denied SRUSA’s motion for summary judgment. The order did not determine the ultimate merits of the plaintiffs’ Endangered Species Act claim or establish SRUSA’s liability. It held that SRUSA’s cessation of manufacturing did not, on the record presented, eliminate the plaintiffs’ claim or demonstrate that effective relief was unavailable.