Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency
- Edward Chen
- 3:17-cv-02162
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Food & Water Watch v. EPA, Judge Chen denied in part and granted in part EPA’s motion, keeping the abeyance order but requiring possible amendment.
The plaintiffs and the Environmental Protection Agency; the case remains paused while the EPA considers the supplemental petition, subject to the amendment procedure described by the court.
What happened
Food & Water Watch, Inc. and others sued the Environmental Protection Agency after it denied their request to prohibit adding fluoridation chemicals to drinking water. After a bench trial, the court paused the case so the agency could consider scientific developments.
The EPA asked the court to cancel that pause and dismiss the complaint, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing, meaning they could not show a sufficient connection to the dispute. The court rejected that request because the EPA used an improper procedure, repeated an argument the court had not yet decided, and did not identify new facts or law requiring reconsideration.
Judge Chen denied in part the EPA’s request to vacate the pause and dismiss the case, but granted in part its request to require the plaintiffs to seek permission to amend their complaint if the EPA denies their supplemental petition.
The detailed version
- Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency · No. 3:17-cv-02162
- Edward Chen
- Jan. 13, 2021
Background
In November 2016, the plaintiffs asked the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct rulemaking to prohibit adding fluoridation chemicals to drinking-water supplies. The EPA denied that request on February 17, 2017, and the plaintiffs filed this case.
After a bench trial, the court issued an August 10, 2020 order holding the proceedings in abeyance, meaning it paused them, so the EPA could consider significant scientific developments since the original petition. The court directed the plaintiffs to file a new petition with the EPA. Instead, the plaintiffs filed a supplemental petition seeking reconsideration of the EPA’s earlier denial based on additional information, including studies, scientific materials, the trial record, and court orders.
EPA’s Motion
The EPA filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), asking for relief from the abeyance order. It argued that the court should have dismissed the case for lack of standing. Standing is the legal requirement that plaintiffs show a sufficient connection to the dispute to invoke the court’s authority.
The court held that Rule 60(b)(6) applies only to final judgments or orders, not to the interlocutory abeyance order at issue. The court also explained that, even if it treated the filing as a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) and the local rules, the EPA had not obtained the required permission to file it. In addition, the EPA relied on no new facts or legal authority, repeated its earlier standing argument, and sought reconsideration of an issue the court had not yet decided.
Ruling
The court denied in part the EPA’s motion as to its request to vacate the abeyance order and dismiss the complaint. The court stated that it saw no need to vacate the abeyance order or dismiss the action.
The court granted in part the EPA’s motion as to its request to amend the abeyance order. If the EPA denies the plaintiffs’ supplemental petition, the plaintiffs must seek leave to amend their complaint. In making that request, they must explain why alleging a new basis for standing would not be futile. Judge Edward M. Chen stated that the order disposed of Docket No. 265.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.