State of California v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:18-cv-03237
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In State of California v. United States EPA, Judge Gilliam modified the injunction as ordered and denied plaintiffs’ stay motion because nothing remained to stay.
The State of California and other plaintiffs, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency and other defendants; the injunction’s deadline requirement was removed, and the plaintiffs’ request to pause the injunction was denied.
What happened
State of California v. United States Environmental Protection Agency concerned a court order requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to issue a federal plan for landfill emissions by November 6, 2019. The Ninth Circuit later ruled that the EPA’s new regulations had removed the legal basis for that deadline and sent the matter back for a change to the order.
The district court removed the requirement that the EPA issue the federal plan by that date. The plaintiffs had also asked the court to pause the remaining order while the EPA’s new regulation was reviewed in another federal appeals court.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. modified the injunction as directed by the Ninth Circuit and denied the motion to stay. The court said there was nothing left to pause because the EPA had already complied with the rest of the injunction.
The detailed version
- State of California v. United States Environmental Protection Agency · No. 4:18-cv-03237
- Haywood Gilliam
- Jan. 19, 2021
Background
The court incorporated the factual background from its earlier order denying the Environmental Protection Agency’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to modify an injunction. The injunction had required the EPA to issue a federal landfill-emissions plan by November 6, 2019.
On October 22, 2020, the Ninth Circuit reversed the earlier order. It held that the EPA’s new regulations had removed the legal basis for the court-imposed deadline and that the district court had refused to modify an injunction based on superseded law. The Ninth Circuit sent the case back with instructions to modify the injunction consistently with its opinion.
Rulings
The district court modified the injunction by eliminating the obligation to issue regulations establishing a federal plan under 40 C.F.R. § 60.27(d) by November 6, 2019.
The plaintiffs had moved to stay, or pause, the injunction while the EPA’s new regulation was reviewed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court denied the motion to stay because, after making the modification required by the Ninth Circuit, there was nothing left to stay: the EPA had already complied with the remainder of the injunction.
Disposition
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. modified the injunction and denied the motion to stay.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.