# Central CA Environmental Justice Network v. Randolph

> District Court, E.D. California · September 26, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10055944

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** September 26, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10055944

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10055944. Public record. Not legal advice.