California Dump Truck Owners Association v. Air Resources Board

Filing 68

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 7/18/12 ORDERING that this matter is SET for hearing on 8/9/2012 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.. Not later than 4:00 p.m. on 8/2/2012, the parties are directed to file additional supplemental briefing, not to exceed 10 pages, on the question of whether the EPA is a necessary, and perhaps indispensable, party to the instant dispute. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

CALIFORNIA DUMP TRUCK OWNERS
ASSOC.,

NO. 2:11-CV-00384-MCE-GGH

11
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

12
v.
13
MARY D. NICHOLS, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16

----oo0oo----

17

Currently pending before the Court are Cross-Motions for

18

Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff California Dump Truck Owners

19

Association (“Plaintiff”), Defendants Mary D. Nichols and James

20

Goldstene (collectively, “ARB”) and Intervenor-Defendant Natural

21

Resources Defense Council, Inc. (“NRDC”), regarding Plaintiff’s

22

claim that California’s Regulation to Reduce Emissions of Diesel

23

Particulate Matter, Oxides of Nitrogen and Other Criteria

24

Pollutants, from In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles (“Truck

25

and Bus Regulation”), 13 Cal. Code Reg. § 2025, is preempted by

26

federal law.

27

briefing on the impact a recent United States Environmental

28

Protection Agency (“EPA”) decision had this case.

On May 31, 2012, this Court ordered further

1

1

Briefing is now complete, and, having reviewed the parties’

2

papers, the Court has determined oral argument is necessary.

3

Accordingly, this matter is set for hearing on Thursday,

4

August 9, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 7.

5

parties should be prepared to discuss whether:

6

At the hearing, the

(1) this Court can grant Plaintiff’s requested

7

relief under the Supremacy Clause when the underlying

8

federal preemption provision expressly preempts only

9

state law and the challenged state law has now been

10

approved by a federal agency;

11

(2) this Court should undertake to harmonize a

12

federal statute and an arguably federalized state

13

regulation when Plaintiff has not alleged any conflict

14

between either a state and federal law or between two

15

federal laws; and

16

(3) assuming a Supremacy Clause claim can proceed

17

under the facts of this case, any judgment of this

18

Court granting Plaintiff’s requested relief will

19

redress Plaintiff’s actual injury given the EPA’s

20

independent approval of the Truck and Bus Regulation as

21

a federally enforceable part of California’s SIP (e.g.,

22

whether the EPA will be bound by a decision of this

23

Court holding the Truck and Bus Regulation is preempted

24

and, if not, whether the EPA could continue to pursue

25

enforcement of the requirements of the existing SIP

26

despite California’s potential inability to enforce its

27

own Regulation).

28

///
2

1

In the meantime, not later than 4:00 p.m. on Thursday August 2,

2

2012, the parties are directed to file additional supplemental

3

briefing, not to exceed ten (10) pages, on the question of

4

whether the EPA is a necessary, and perhaps indispensable, party

5

to the instant dispute.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 18, 2012

8
9
10

_____________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3