Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation v. Aztec Perlite Company, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed Plaintiff's motion for default judgment in a Clean Water Act citizen suit and found that Plaintiff failed to adequately demonstrate organizational standing. The court directed Plaintiff to submit supplemental briefing with evidence identifying members and their injuries in fact.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
The court directed Plaintiff to submit supplemental briefing addressing the issue of standing.“For these reasons, the Court DIRECTS Plaintiff to submit supplemental briefing addressing the above issue.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that organizational standing requires evidence that specific members have suffered an injury in fact. The order notes that Plaintiff did not submit declarations or other evidence identifying members or their injuries, which is a standard requirement for establishing standing in environmental cases. Directing supplemental briefing is a reasonable procedural step to allow the plaintiff to cure the deficiency before ruling on the merits of the default judgment motion. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the established legal standards for organizational standing, citing the appropriate Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedents. It accurately identifies the deficiency in the plaintiff's current submission (lack of evidence identifying members and their injuries) and provides a clear, reasonable opportunity to cure the defect through supplemental briefing. The reasoning is sound and directly addresses the motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS Case No.: 24-cv-385-RSH-SBC FOUNDATION, 12 ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL Plaintiff, 13 BRIEFING v. 14 AZTEC PERLITE COMPANY, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 Before the Court is Plaintiff Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation’s motion 20 for default judgment. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff is a non-profit corporation established “to 21 advocate for the protection and enhancement of coastal natural resources and the quality 22 of life for coastal residents.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 18. On February 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed its 23 Complaint in this action against Defendant Aztec Perlite Company, Inc. under the citizen 24 enforcement provision of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”). Id. at ¶ 1. The Complaint 25 alleges that Defendant operates a perlite manufacturing facility which discharges 26 pollutant-contaminated storm water in violation of the CWA and California’s “General 27 Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities” (“General 28 1 Permit”). On July 30, 2024, default was entered against Defendant and Plaintiff 2 subsequently filed a motion for default judgment. ECF Nos. 16, 18. 3 Standing is an “‘indispensable part’” of a plaintiff’s case and “must be supported at 4 each stage of litigation in the same manner as any other essential element of the case.” 5 Cent. Delta Water Agency v. United States, 306 F.3d 938, 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 6 Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992)). An organization can bring suit in 7 federal court under two theories of standing: by suing on its own behalf, or on behalf of 8 its members. See Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. San Jose Unified Sch. Dist. Bd. of 9 Educ., 82 F.4th 664, 723 (9th Cir. 2023). Based on the Complaint, Plaintiff appears to 10 assert standing under the second theory. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 18–20. 11 “An organization has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members when: ‘(a) its 12 members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it 13 seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purposes; and (c) neither the claim 14 asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the 15 lawsuit.’” Ecological Rights Found. v. Pac. Lumber Co., 230 F.3d 1141, 1147 (9th Cir. 16 2000) (quoting Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Com'n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 17 (1977)). Individual members of the organization “have standing in their own right under 18 Article III if ‘they have suffered an injury in fact that is (a) concrete and particularized 19 and (b) actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical, . . . the injury is fairly 20 traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and . . . it is likely, as opposed to 21 merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.’” Id. 22 (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 23 180–81 (2000)). 24 Here, Plaintiff does not sufficiently explain how it has standing to bring this suit on 25 behalf of its members. Specifically, Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence— 26 particularly in the form of declarations—identifying the members on which it relies on 27 for standing or how these members have suffered an injury in fact. See Friends of the 28 Earth, 528 U.S. at 183 (injury in fact adequately documented by affidavits and testimony 1 ||presented by environmental organization’s members); Ecological Rights, 230 F.3d at 2 || 1150 (same); see also Fish Nw. v. Rumsey, No. 22-35641, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 15274, 3 *12—13 (9th Cir. June 20, 2023) (same). 4 For these reasons, the Court DIRECTS Plaintiff to submit supplemental briefing 5 ||addressing the above issue. Plaintiff's brief should be no more than five pages in length 6 || (excluding attachments) and be filed on or before October 11, 2024. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: October 2, 2024 febut 9 10 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28