State of California et al v. United States Environmental Protection Agency et al

Filing 124

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING DEFENDANTS RULE 60(B) 109 MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT. (This order terminates docket no. 123 ). (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/5/2019)

Case 4:18-cv-03237-HSG Document 124 Filed 11/05/19 Page 1 of 6

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9
10

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY, et al.,

11

Case No. 18-cv-03237-HSG
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS
RULE 60(B) MOTION TO ALTER
JUDGMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 109

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
After the Court’s May 6, 2019 Order granting in part Plaintiffs’ motion for summary

13
14

judgment (Dkt. No. 98, “Order”), Defendants U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Andrew

15

R. Wheeler, in his official capacity as Acting Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection

16

Agency (collectively, “EPA”) filed the instant motion seeking relief from the Court’s Order and

17

Judgment (Dkt. No. 99) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5). 1 Specifically, EPA

18

argues that because the EPA Administrator signed a final rule on August 16, 2019, changing the

19

submission deadline for state plans from May 30, 2017, to August 29, 2019, and changing EPA’s

20

timeline to promulgate a federal plan from within six months of the submission deadline to within

21

two years of the submission deadline, these significant changes in facts and law warrant a revision

22

of the Court’s May 6, 2019 Order and Judgment. The Court disagrees and DENIES EPA’s

23

motion.

24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiffs are eight states: the State of California, by and through the Attorney General and the
California Air Resources Board; the State of Illinois; the State of Maryland; the State of New
Mexico; the State of Oregon; the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; the State of Rhode Island; and
the State of Vermont. Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 1, 10–18. Plaintiffs also include the Environmental Defense
Fund, which the Court permitted to intervene on November 20, 2018. See Dkt. No. 78.

Case 4:18-cv-03237-HSG Document 124 Filed 11/05/19 Page 2 of 6

I.

1

BACKGROUND
As relevant for the pending motion, on August 29, 2016, EPA promulgated a final rule

2
3
4

related to Municipal Solid Waste landfills.2 Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 81 Fed. Reg. 59,276 (Aug. 29, 2016) (“Old Rule”). The Old
Rule became effective on October 28, 2016. Thereafter, according to EPA’s regulations:

5
1.
States were required to submit implementation plans by May
30, 2017, see 40 C.F.R. § 60.23(a)(1);
2.
EPA was required to approve or disapprove submitted plans
by September 30, 2017, see 40 C.F.R. § 60.27(b); and
3.
If either (i) states to which the guideline pertained did not
submit implementation plans, or (ii) EPA disapproved a submitted
plan, then EPA was required to promulgate a federal plan within six
months of the submission deadline (November 30, 2017), see 40
C.F.R. § 60.27(d).

6
7
8
9
10

The parties agreed that EPA failed to fulfill certain non-discretionary duties under 40
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

C.F.R. § 60.27, and after finding that Plaintiffs had standing to bring suit, the Court granted partial
12
summary judgment for Plaintiffs. Dkt. No. 98. Specifically, the Court ordered the EPA to
13
approve or disapprove existing state plans no later than September 6, 2019, and to promulgate
14
regulations setting forth a federal plan no later than November 6, 2019. Id. at 15–16. According
15

to EPA’s status report filed on August 7, 2019, it was complying with the Court’s Order by

16
making progress on approving or disapproving existing state plans. See Dkt. No. 108. On August
17
22, 2019, EPA published notice of the proposed federal plan. See Federal Plan Requirements for
18
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills That Commenced Construction On or Before July 17, 2014, and
19
Have Not Been Modified or Reconstructed Since July 17, 2014, 84 Fed. Reg. 43,745 (Aug. 22,
20

2019) (“Proposed Federal Plan”).

21
On August 16, 2019, EPA amended its regulations to change the applicable deadlines.
22
23
24

States must now “submit a state plan to the EPA by August 29, 2019,” pushing the deadline back
over two years. 40 C.F.R. § 60.30f (“New Rule”). Additionally, EPA amended the regulations
applicable to the Administrator’s actions as follows:

25
(c) The Administrator will promulgate, through notice-and-comment
rulemaking, a federal plan, or portion thereof, at any time within two

26
27
28

A complete review of the history of the case can be found in the Court’s previous Order granting
summary judgment to the Plaintiffs. Dkt. No. 98.
2
2

Case 4:18-cv-03237-HSG Document 124 Filed 11/05/19 Page 3 of 6

years after the Administrator:
(1) Finds that a State fails to submit a required plan or plan
revision or finds that the plan or plan revision does not satisfy
the minimum criteria under paragraph (g) of this section; or
(2) Disapproves the required State plan or plan revision or any
portion thereof, as unsatisfactory because the applicable
requirements of this subpart or an applicable subpart under
this part have not been met.

1
2
3
4
5

40 C.F.R. § 60.27a(c) (emphasis added). EPA promptly filed this Motion to Amend Order and

6

Judgment on August 28, 2019, for which briefing is complete. Dkt. Nos. 109 (“Mot.”), 114

7

(“Opp.”), 116 (“Reply”). EPA asks the Court to vacate its order and judgment that requires EPA

8

to promulgate a federal plan by November 6, 2019. See generally Mot.3 The Court held a hearing

9

on the motion to amend order and judgment on October 24, 2019. Dkt. No. 120.

10

II.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), in relevant part, provides that “the court may relieve

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

LEGAL STANDARD

12

a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following

13

reason[]: (5) . . . applying [the judgment] prospectively is no longer equitable.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

14

60(b)(5). “[T]he Rule codifies the courts’ traditional authority, ‘inherent in the jurisdiction of the

15

chancery,’ to modify or vacate the prospective effect of their decrees.” Bellevue Manor Assocs. v.

16

United States, 165 F.3d 1249, 1252 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S.

17

106, 114 (1932)).
The Ninth Circuit has established a two-part standard to modify a final judgment or order

18
19

under Rule 60(b)(5). First, the “party seeking modification of [an order] bears the burden of

20

establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree.” Rufo v.

21

Inmates of Suffolk Cty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 383 (1992). Once this initial burden is met, the “district

22

court must then determine whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to resolve the

23

problems created by the changed factual or legal conditions.” United States v. Asarco Inc., 430

24

F.3d 972, 979–80 (9th Cir. 2005). In making its determination, the Court may “take all the

25

circumstances into account in determining whether to modify or vacate a prior [order or

26

judgment].” Bellevue Manor, 165 F.3d at 1256.

27
28

The EPA does not seek modification of the Court’s order and judgment that requires EPA to take
final action on state plans submitted prior to the issuance of the New Rule. Mot. at 7.
3
3

Case 4:18-cv-03237-HSG Document 124 Filed 11/05/19 Page 4 of 6

1

III.

ANALYSIS
In bringing a Rule 60(b) motion, EPA asks the Court to determine whether its own

2
3

amendment of a federal rule constitutes “a significant change in facts or law” that warrants the
revision of the Court’s Order. In its discretion, the Court finds that the situation presented here,

4
where EPA undisputedly violated the Old Rule, received an unfavorable judgment, and then
5
issued the New Rule only to reset its non-discretionary deadline (rather than to remedy its
6
violation), does not render the judgment inequitable.
7

EPA contends that “[w]hen a change in the law authorizes what had previously been

8
forbidden it is abuse of discretion for a court to refuse to modify an injunction founded on the
9

superseded law.” Am. Horse Prot. Ass’n, Inc. v. Watt, 694 F.2d 1310, 1316 (D.C. Cir. 1982); see

10
also Class v. Norton, 507 F.2d 1058, 1062 (2d Cir. 1974); McGrath v. Potash, 199 F.2d 166, 168
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

(D.C. Cir. 1952). However, the facts in American Horse and the other cases where courts have so
12
held are plainly distinguishable from the situation presented here. In each case, the change in law
13
was made by a non-party. In American Horse, an amendment of the governing federal statute by
14

Congress warranted granting the Bureau of Land Management’s motion to dissolve an injunction.

15
694 F.2d at 1319–20. In Class, a change in federal regulation extending the processing ceiling for
16
applications for Aid to Families with Dependent Children warranted relief for the state agency
17
charged with implementing the state plan. 507 F.3d at 1062. Finally, in McGrath, Congress
18

enacted a new statute, removing the statutory basis for the district court’s holding and warranting

19
relief under Rule 60(b). Here, unlike those cases, the EPA amended its own regulations after
20
numerous states filed this action to compel it to comply with its duties, after the Court found it in
21
violation of its non-discretionary duties, and after the Court issued an order detailing how the
22

agency was required to comply.4 EPA’s voluntary action here makes this case unlike those where

23
subsequent changes in law were enacted by third parties, as opposed to by the very party subject to
24
25
26
27
28

4

That the EPA previously alerted the Court to the then-proposed amendment does not compel a
different outcome. See Mot. at 3. The amendment was subject to the ordinary uncertainty of the
rulemaking process, and importantly, the Court determined that Plaintiffs established harm
stemming from the EPA’s failure to promulgate a federal plan by November 30, 2017. See Dkt.
No. 82, 98. That harm does not dissipate, and in fact continues, by virtue of EPA’s delay of its
non-discretionary deadline.
4

Case 4:18-cv-03237-HSG Document 124 Filed 11/05/19 Page 5 of 6

1
2

the Court’s order.
Nor does this case present a situation where the agency’s new regulation sought to cure the

3

deficiency identified by the Court. While “[i]t is both logical and precedented that an agency can

4

engage in new rulemaking to correct a prior rule which a court has found defective,” N.A.A.C.P.,

5

Jefferson Cty. Branch v. Donovan, 737 F.2d 67, 72 (D.C. Cir. 1984), such that granting a Rule

6

60(b) motion is equitable, the Court never found the Old Rule defective. Instead, EPA, by its own

7

admission, was in violation of its regulation by failing to act. EPA then enacted the new

8

regulations, which only delay EPA’s obligations, rather than changing them. This action sidesteps

9

the Court’s order, delaying EPA’s fulfillment of unchanged obligations with no guarantee that this
precise situation will not occur again in two years’ time. Additionally, this scenario presents a

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

serious concern that in cases where a judgment is premised on an agency’s failure to meet

12

deadlines, that agency can perpetually evade judicial review through amendment, even after a

13

violation has been found. Cf. Tallahassee Mem’l Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. Bowen, 815 F.2d 1435, 1452

14

(11th Cir. 1987) (“Without at all wishing to suggest any improper motive on the part of the

15

[Administrator] in this case . . . , it is still a concern that [allowing modification of the Order]

16

could permit, in some future case, an abuse of the interaction between administrative agencies and

17

the courts.”).

18

Significantly, outside of Defendant’s reliance on the new amendment, all other

19

circumstances indicate that enforcement of the judgment is still equitable. See Bellevue Manor,

20

165 F.3d at 1256 (instructing the Court to “take all the circumstances into account in determining

21

whether to modify or vacate a prior [order or judgment].”). After careful consideration of EPA’s

22

representations about the phases required to conduct rulemaking for the final action on a federal

23

plan, the Court imposed a six-month deadline to promulgate a federal plan, a presumptively

24

reasonable timeframe given the previous regulation. Dkt. No. 98 at 13–14. Thus, EPA was

25

ordered to set forth a federal plan no later than November 6, 2019. Id. at 16. The Proposed

26

Federal Plan was issued on August 22, 2019, and the notice and comment period was complete as

27

of October 7, 2019. See Proposed Federal Plan, 84 Fed. Reg. 43,745. All that remains is for the

28

agency to incorporate public comments and promulgate the federal plan, which EPA noted “is not
5

Case 4:18-cv-03237-HSG Document 124 Filed 11/05/19 Page 6 of 6

1

a significant regulatory action . . . submitted to [OMB] for review.” Id. at 43,755. Given EPA’s

2

significant progress and the limited work remaining on the federal plan, the record does not

3

establish that the Court-imposed six-month deadline is no longer equitable.
Issuing a final federal plan also poses no obstacle to EPA’s New Rule. The New Rule

4
5

provided additional time for states to submit a state plan, and early issuance of a federal plan does

6

not prevent states from submitting, and EPA from approving, new state plans. See 40 C.F.R.

7

§§ 60.27a(c), 60.30f. Instead, it imposes emissions guidelines on all states who failed to provide a

8

state plan, ensuring that the harm disclosed by Plaintiffs ceases.

9

IV.

CONCLUSION
Finding that EPA has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that imposition of the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Court’s Order is no longer equitable, the Court, in its discretion, DENIES EPA’s Motion to

12

Amend Order and Judgment. The Court further STAYS the judgment for sixty days to allow

13

either party to file a notice of appeal. If no notice is filed, the stay will lift automatically on

14

January 7, 2020. This order further terminates as MOOT Dkt. No. 123.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 11/5/2019
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6