Coalition for Clean Air, Inc., et al v. VWR International, LLC

Filing 36

ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on January 24, 2013. (Munoz, I)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 6 7 COALITION FOR CLEAN AIR, a California 1:12-CV-01569-LJO-BAM nonprofit corporation; CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, a California ORDER REQUESTING nonprofit Corporation; ASSOCIATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING IRRITATED RESIDENTS, a California nonprofit organization; TEAMSTERS JOINT COUNSIL 7, an organized labor union; KEVIN LONG, an individual, 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. 10 VWR INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Delaware 11 corporation; and DOES 1-X, inclusive, 12 13 Defendants. This case arises under the citizen suit provision of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. 14 15 16 § 7604(a). Plaintiffs, a coalition of environmental and labor interests, allege that Defendant VWR International, LLC, (“VWR”), a laboratory supply distributor, violated San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 17 Control District (“District”) Rule 9510, implemented and approved as part of California’s State 18 Implementation Plan (“SIP”) under the CAA, by failing to apply for an Indirect Source Review (“ISR”) 19 permit prior to obtaining approval to open and/or operate a trucking distribution facility in Visalia, 20 21 California. Before the Court for decision is Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), Doc. 17, and Plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary adjudication, Doc. 23. 22 23 The Court has carefully reviewed the entire record and believes that a key issue in this case is 24 whether language in Visalia Municipal Code (“VMC”) § 17.28.040A renders the Visalia Site Plan 25 Review Committee’s actions in connection with VWR’s project “discretionary” as that term is defined 26 in Rule 9510. It appears that a very similar, but not entirely identical, issue was discussed by the 27 California Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in its September 14, 2012 ruling in Coalition for Clean 28 1 1 Air et al. v. City of Visalia et al., Case No. F062983 (“State Court Action”).1 The status of the State 2 Court Action is relevant to Defendant’s contention that this Court should abstain from hearing this 3 matter under either Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 (1943), and/or Colorado River Water 4 Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976). Yet, the record contains little 5 6 information about the current status of the State Court Action. Accordingly, the Parties are directed to file a joint status report, describing the current posture of 7 8 the State Court Action and any anticipated future activity in that case. In particular, the Parties shall 9 articulate whether interpretation of VMC § 17.28.040A is still at issue in the case, and, if so, the context 10 in which any such interpretations may be made. For example, the September 14, 2012 decision in the 11 State Court Action mentioned VMC § 17.28.040A in the context of its discussion of a mandamus claim. 12 Do other claims remain that may require interpretation of VMC § 17.28.040A? The joint status report 13 shall not contain legal argument regarding application of the abstention doctrines noted above. 14 The Parties are directed to file the joint status report, which shall be no longer than 7 pages in 15 16 length, on or before January 31, 2013. If, after making reasonable attempts to resolve any disagreements, 17 the Parties cannot agree on the content of the joint status report, they are to articulate any disagreements 18 therein. 19 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 23 24 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill January 24, 2013 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END: 25 b2e55c0d 26 27 1 The Court takes judicial notice that the California Supreme Court recently denied VWR’s petition for review of the Fifth 28 District Court of Appeals’ ruling. 2

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?