San Diego Coastkeeper, a non-profit corporation; Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation, a non-profit corporation v. West Coast Iron, a California Corporation
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
Plaintiffs notified the court that the 45-day review period for their proposed consent decree had expired without objection from the Department of Justice. The court directed the parties to file a joint motion to enter the consent decree, including briefing on its fairness and legality, by February 19, 2026.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
The court directed the parties to file a joint motion to enter the consent decree, including specific briefing on the decree's fairness, adequacy, reasonableness, and conformity with law.“Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Parties to file a joint motion to enter the consent decree. The Court further DIRECTS the Parties to address, in such motion, how the proposed consent decree is procedurally and substantively “fair, adequate and reasonable” and “‘conform|[s] to applicable laws.”” | agree with court The court correctly applied S.D. Cal. CivLR 7.2(b), which mandates that stipulations for court approval be filed as joint motions. The court also correctly identified the legal standards for reviewing consent decrees in environmental citizen suits, citing Ninth Circuit precedent (United States v. Oregon) and Supreme Court precedent (Local No. 93, Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters v. Cleveland) regarding the requirement that decrees be fair, adequate, reasonable, and further the objectives of the underlying law. The directive is a procedural step to ensure proper judicial review before entry. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a procedural directive that correctly applies the local rule requiring a joint motion for stipulations. It accurately cites the controlling legal standards for reviewing consent decrees in this context. There are no gaps or questionable reasoning; it simply sets the procedural path for the next step in the litigation.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SAN DIEGO COASTKEEPER, a non- Case No.: 25-cv-00879-JO-DDL 11 profit corporation; COASTAL 12 ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS MINUTE ORDER 13 FOUNDATION, a non-profit corporation, 14 Plaintiffs, 15 16 v. 17 WEST COAST IRON, a California 18 Corporation, 19 Defendant. 20 21 On November 17, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Settlement and Commencement 22 of 45-Day Review Period. See Dkt. 18. The Notice indicated the Parties reached a 23 settlement, whose specific terms were set forth in a proposed Consent Decree, attached to 24 the Notice as an exhibit. See Dkt. 18-1. Plaintiffs represented they “mailed copies of the 25 proposed Consent Decree to the Administrator of the U.S. E.P.A., the U.S. Attorney 26 General, Citizen Suit Coordinator, and the Regional Administrator of the EPA Region IX.” 27 Dkt. 18 at 2. The Notice stated that under provisions of 40 C.F.R. § 135.5, these agencies 28 1 || would have 45 days from the date of receipt to review a proposed consent decree and to 2 ||submit comments to the Court and the Parties, if any. Jd. 3 On January 8, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Completion of 45-Day Review 4 || Period. See Dkt. 19. The Notice indicated that on November 18, 2025, the U.S. Department 5 || of Justice served counsel of record for Plaintiffs a letter confirming receipt of the Consent 6 || Decree and indicating that if the DOJ has no comments or objections, Plaintiffs would not 7 receive additional contact regarding this matter. See Dkt. 19-1. Plaintiffs confirmed that 8 ||they have not received any further communications from the DOJ and therefore requests 9 || the Court enter the Consent Decree. See Dkt. 19 at 2-3. 10 S.D. Cal. CivLR 7.2(b) requires that “[a]ny stipulation for which court approval is 11 |}sought must be first filed as a ‘joint motion.’” Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the 12 || Parties to file a joint motion to enter the consent decree. The Court further DIRECTS the 13 || Parties to address, in such motion, how the proposed consent decree is procedurally and 14 || substantively “fair, adequate and reasonable” and “‘conform|[s] to applicable laws.” United 15 || States v. Oregon, 913 F.2d 576, 580 (9th Cir. 1990). The Parties should also address how 16 proposed decree furthers the objectives of the “law upon which the complaint was 17 || based.” See Local No. 93, Int’l Ass’n. of Firefighters, etc. v. Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501, 525 18 ||(1986). The joint motion, including the aforementioned briefing, should be no more than 19 || ten pages in length and be filed on or before February 19, 2026. 20 21 9 IT IS SO ORDERED.
A Dated: January 27, 2026 - 25 Honorable Jinsook Ohta 26 United States District Judge 27 28