Padres Hacia una Vida Mejor et al v. Jackson et al
Filing
57
ORDER vacating hearing date of December 3, 2012 and order for supplemental briefing. signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/28/2012. (Nazaroff, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
LISA P. JACKSON, in her official
)
capacity as Administrator of the U.S.
)
Environmental Protection Agency, and )
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
PADRES HACIA UNA VIDA MEJOR,
an unincorporated association, and EL
PUEBLO PARA EL AIRE Y AGUA
LIMPIO, an unincorporated association,
1:11-cv-1094 AWI DLB
ORDER VACATING
DECEMBER 3, 2012 HEARING
AND ORDER FOR
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
18
19
20
Currently set for hearing and decision on December 3, 2012, is Defendants’ motion to
21
dismiss and Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions. The Court has reviewed the submissions of the
22
parties.
23
With respect to the motion to dismiss, the Court has additional concerns and questions
24
which require additional briefing. In particular, the Court has significant concerns about what
25
effective relief can be granted to Plaintiffs now that the EPA has resolved their 17 year pending
26
Title VI complaint. If the Court were to hold a hearing at this time, it would most likely require
27
the parties to submit additional briefing. As such, the Court believes that it is more efficient for
28
the parties to submit supplemental briefing prior to holding a hearing. In the supplemental
1
briefing, the parties will support their positions with citations to relevant authority. If the parties
2
cannot find cases that are on point, they are required to expressly inform the Court that they have
3
not found cases that are on point despite reasonable research efforts. The parties shall submit
4
supplemental briefing on the following issues:
5
1.
Are there any cases that have held that the type of prospective relief requested by Plaintiff
6
(i.e. an injunction that would require EPA to timely resolve any future Title VI
7
complaints filed by Plaintiffs) is available under § 706(1), or that have granted that type
8
of prospective relief in a § 706(1) case?
9
2.
Assuming that § 706(1) does not authorize the Court to grant the type of prospective
10
relief requested by Plaintiffs, how would the Plaintiffs’ requested declaratory relief
11
constitute “effective relief”?
12
3.
13
Does the voluntary cessation doctrine apply when the court cannot grant “effective
relief”?
14
Additionally, Defendants’ reply argues in part that, given the substantial work that was
15
performed in resolving Plaintiffs’ Title VI complaint, it is unlikely that Plaintiffs would
16
experience material delays if they file the Title VI complaint that was described in the Mares-
17
Alatorre Declaration and Page 7 of Plaintiff’s Opposition. Plaintiffs shall address this argument.1
18
With respect to Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions, the Court has no additional concerns, and
19
will take that motion under submission without a hearing. See Local Rule 270(h).
20
21
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
22
1.
The December 3, 2012, hearing is VACATED;
23
2.
The Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions is TAKEN UNDER SUBMISSION as of December
24
25
3, 2012, and the Court will issue a ruling on that motion thereafter;
3.
26
The parties shall file supplemental briefing as described above on or by December 12,
2012;
27
28
1
Plaintiff may also address the evidence in the DeLeon Declaration (Doc. No. 51) regarding “Recent
Changes to OCR’s Title VI Program.”
daw
2
1
4.
2
3
2012; and
5.
4
5
The parties shall file replies to the supplemental briefing no later than December 19,
After receipt of the supplemental briefing, if the Court determines that oral argument
would be helpful, it will set a new hearing date at that time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7
Dated:
0m8i78
November 28, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
daw
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?