Central CA Environmental Justice Network v. Randolph

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 10 — CENTRAL CALIFORNIA No. 2:22-cv-01714-DJC-CKD 11 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE NETWORK, et al., ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 RECONSIDERATION OF ECF NO. 41 Plaintiffs, — 13 — v. — 14 — LIANE RANDOLPH, in her official 15 capacity as Chair of the Air Resources Board, et al., — 16 — Defendants. — 17 — — 18 — 19 Plaintiffs previously moved for summary judgment, which the Court granted. 20 Not satisfied with the relief granted, Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the 21 Order. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for 22 Reconsideration. 23 LEGAL STANDARD 24 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may file a “motion to alter or 25 amend a judgment” within “28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 59(e). “Although Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a 27 previous order, the rule offers an ‘extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the 28 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.’” 1 , 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting 6 James Wm. Moore, et al., 2 § 54.78[1] (3d ed. 2000)). The Ninth Circuit has held a 3 motion for reconsideration is “usually available only when (1) the court committed 4 manifest errors of law or fact, (2) the court is presented with newly discovered or 5 previously unavailable evidence, (3) the decision was manifestly unjust, or (4) there is 6 an intervening change in the controlling law.” , 822 F.3d 482 , 491– 7 92 (9th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). The district court enjoys considerable discretion 8 in granting or denying the motion for reconsideration. at 492 (citation 9 omitted). 10 ANALYSIS 11 The background leading up to the Motion for Reconsideration are set forth in 12 the prior Order. ( 7/21/2023 Order at 5–9 (ECF No. 41).) In short, Plaintiffs argue 13 that this Court must impose a substantive target on Defendant’s outstanding 14 contingency measures under the Clean Air Act. ( at 16–19.) 15 As an initial matter, as Defendants point out, even assuming Plaintiffs’ 16 interpretation of footnote 36 is correct, that footnote formed a portion of this Court’s 17 reasoning, thus not making it “clear error” or a “manifest error of law” were the Court’s 18 interpretation incorrect. (State Defs.’ Opp’n to Reconsideration and Req. for Jud. 19 Notice1 (ECF No. 48) 1 [hereinafter Opposition or Opp’n].) The discussion of footnote 20 36 was but one part of the Court’s order, which was primarily based on the fact that 21 Plaintiffs were “unable to point to language evincing a commitment to adopt 22 contingency measures to achieve a three percent reduction.” (7/21/2023 Order at 23 18.) Plaintiffs are simply wrong when they claim that “[a]ll other indicia of EPA intent — 24 — 1 Where a fact is proper for judicial notice, the Federal Rules of Evidence require a court to take judicial 25 notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information. Fed. R. Evid. 201(c)(2). Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice of two exhibits that contain: (1) the EPA’s 26 federal implementation plan for contingency measures for the San Joaquin Valley for particulate matter, the other major air pollutant category regulated by the Clean Air Act, and (2) a technical support 27 document from the EPA for the attached federal implementation plan. ( ECF No. 48-1 at 2.) Defendants provide the necessary citations to support their request, so the Court GRANTS Defendants’ 28 Request for Judicial Notice. ( ) 1 show that EPA interpreted the requirements of section 172(c)(9) to include, among 2 others, reductions equivalent to 3 percent of the baseline inventory . . . .” (Pls.’ Reply 3 in Supp. of Mot. for Reconsideration (ECF No. 51) 2 [hereinafter Reply].) In its Order 4 this Court held to the contrary, and at bottom, Plaintiffs simply disagree with this 5 Court’s decision. They have “failed to show an intervening change in the controlling 6 law or newly discovered evidence” , 235 Fed. Appx. 683, 683 (9th 7 Cir. 2007) (mem.) (citing , 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th 8 Cir. 2004), which is enough to deny the Motion. 9 Even on the merits, however, it is not clear that the Court’s interpretation of this 10 footnote was in error. The sentence to which footnote 36 was appended provides: 11 “ . . . we propose to approve CARB’s enforceable commitment to submit, no later than 12 2020, additional contingency measures under CAA section 182(e)(5) that meet the 13 requirements for attainment contingency measures in CAA section 172(c)(9) 14 contingency measures to be implemented if the anticipated long-term 15 measures approved pursuant to section 182(e)(5) do not achieve planned reductions.” 16 Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley; 17 Attainment Plan for 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard, 76 Fed. Reg. 57,846 , 57,864 18 (proposed Sept. 16, 2011) (codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 52) (emphasis added). As 19 Defendants note. footnote 36 is ambiguous because it could apply to only the new 20 technology measures under section 182(e)(5), or it could also apply to the attainment 21 contingency measures under section 172(c)(9); “but this possibility does not constitute 22 clear error.” (Opp’n 9.) Plaintiffs argue that footnote 36 contains no “express” 23 administrative intent “for this Court to hold that the 3 percent standard does not apply 24 to attainment contingency measures.” (Reply 4 (citations omitted).) Plaintiffs 25 misconstrue the question for this Court, however, as the issue is whether there is 26 language from which “this Court [must] hold that the 3 percent standard [ ] apply 27 to attainment contingency measures.” ( (alterations and emphasis added).) The 28 Court continues to conclude there is no such language in the SIP, which does not 1 | contain a commitment to adopt contingency measures to achieve a three percent 2 | reduction. 3 CONCLUSION 4 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for 5 | Reconsideration (ECF No. 42). — 6 — 5 IT 1S SO ORDERED. 3 | Dated: _ September 25, 2023 Bek | Cbabeatin.. Hon. Daniel labretta ? UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE — 10 — — 11 — — 12 — — 13 — — 14 — — 15 — — 16 — — 17 — — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 — — 1 — — 2 — 3 DJC3 – ccejn22cv1714.MFR — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — — 8 — — 9 — — 10 — — 11 — — 12 — — 13 — — 14 — — 15 — — 16 — — 17 — — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —