Earth Island Institute v. Wheeler
- William Orrick
- 3:20-cv-00670
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Earth Island Institute v. Wheeler, Judge Orrick denied the EPA’s request to seek reconsideration of an earlier order.
The EPA and Administrator Andrew R. Wheeler were affected because the court denied their motion for permission to seek reconsideration; the earlier order remained in place.
What happened
Earth Island Institute and other plaintiffs sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Administrator Andrew R. Wheeler. The EPA asked for permission to file a motion asking the court to reconsider an earlier order concerning whether federal law required changes to the National Contingency Plan.
The EPA argued that the statute gave the Administrator discretion to decide when and how the plan should be revised, and that the court had failed to address that argument and differences from another case. The court said its earlier order had examined the statute’s relevant language and had considered the comparison the EPA raised.
The court found that the EPA was improperly repeating arguments it had made in its motion to dismiss and had already rejected. Judge William H. Orrick denied the EPA’s motion for permission to file a reconsideration motion.
The detailed version
- Earth Island Institute v. Wheeler · No. 3:20-cv-00670
- William Orrick
- Sept. 1, 2020
Background
The United States Environmental Protection Agency and its Administrator, Andrew R. Wheeler, referred to collectively as the EPA, asked for permission to file a motion for reconsideration of an earlier interlocutory order. An interlocutory order is an order issued before the case is fully resolved. The earlier order addressed 33 U.S.C. § 1321(d)(3), including whether that provision imposes a duty to revise or amend the National Contingency Plan.
Arguments
Under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(3), a party seeking permission to request reconsideration of an interlocutory order must show reasonable diligence and a manifest failure by the court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments previously presented. The EPA argued that the court had failed to address the statute’s language giving the President, with authority delegated to the EPA Administrator, discretion to determine when revising the plan was advisable. The EPA also argued that the court had not addressed differences between § 1321(d)(3) and the Toxic Substances Control Act provision discussed in a 2017 Ninth Circuit case.
Ruling
The court rejected those arguments. It said the earlier order had focused on the relevant statutory terms, including “may,” “from time to time,” and “as [the Administrator] deems advisable.” It also said the earlier order had recognized the comparison to the other statute and addressed the difference between “as advisable” and “as necessary.” The court concluded that the EPA’s arguments improperly repeated arguments from its motion to dismiss, which the court had rejected. Judge William H. Orrick therefore denied the EPA’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.