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

Filing 152

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. MODIFYING JUDGMENT AND DENYING 145 MOTION TO STAY.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2021)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10
11

v.

Case No. 18-cv-03237-HSG
ORDER MODIFYING JUDGMENT
AND DENYING MOTION TO STAY
Re: Dkt. No. 145

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

The Court fully incorporates the factual background from its prior order denying EPA’s

14

Rule 60(b) motion. See California v. United States EPA, No. 18-cv-03237-HSG, 2019 U.S. Dist.

15

LEXIS 192206, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2019).

16

On October 22, 2020, the Ninth Circuit reversed the Court’s order denying EPA’s Rule

17

60(b) motion to modify an injunction which required EPA to promulgate its federal landfill

18

emissions plan by November 6, 2019. California v. United States EPA, 978 F.3d 708, 719 (9th

19

Cir. 2020). EPA had promulgated new regulations changing the regulatory deadline underpinning

20

the injunction. Id. at 711. The Ninth Circuit held that “EPA’s new regulations ha[d] removed the

21

legal basis for the court’s deadline” and that the Court had “refuse[d] to modify an injunction

22

based on superseded law.” Id. at 717, 719. The Ninth Circuit remanded “with instructions for the

23

district court to modify the injunction consistent with this opinion.” Id. at 719.

24

As directed by the Ninth Circuit, the Court modifies the injunction to eliminate the

25

obligation “to promulgate regulations setting forth a federal plan, as required by 40 C.F.R. §

26

60.27(d), no later than November 6, 2019.” See California v. United States EPA, 385 F. Supp. 3d

27

903, 916 (N.D. Cal. 2019).

28

In October 2019, while the appeal of the Rule 60(b) motion was pending, Plaintiffs sought

1

review of EPA’s new regulation in the U.S. Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit.

2

See Dkt. No. 145 at 2. On December 14, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion to stay in this case, asking

3

the Court to stay the injunction pending resolution of the petition in the D.C. Circuit. Id. But now

4

that the Court has made the modification mandated by the Ninth Circuit’s opinion, there is nothing

5

to stay, because EPA has already complied with the remainder of the injunction. Accordingly, the

6

Motion to Stay is DENIED.

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 1/19/2021
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2