Natural Resources Defense Council San Diego Baykeeper, Kenneth J. Moser v. Southwest Marine, Inc.,defendant-Appellant (2000)

Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 995 (9th Cir. 2000); Tenth Circuit: Utah Physicians, 21 F.4th at 1244–45; Third Circuit: NRDC, Inc. v. Texaco Ref. & Mktg., Inc., 2 F.3d 493 , 505 (3d Cir. 1993); Sixth Circuit: Am.

Id. ("Although we require strict compliance with the [Act]'s notice requirement, we do not require citizen-plaintiffs to refer to provisions of plans that do not exist."). 27 Finally, AG Industrial relies on the Supreme Court's decision in Gwaltney to argue that we may affirm dismissal because the evidence the parties submitted on summary judgment proves that WaterKeepers did not file its complaint in "good faith." See Gwaltney, 484 U.S. at 64 , 108 S.Ct. 376 ("[W]e agree th…

Id. (“Although we require strict compliance with the [Act]’s notice requirement, we do not require citizen-plaintiffs to refer to provisions of plans that do not exist.”).

Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 999 (9th Cir. 2000)), “[p]rospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs,” 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (a)(1)(A).

Council v. Southwest Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 1001 (9th Cir. 2000).

Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 997 (9th Cir. 2000); Water Keeper All. v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 271 F.3d 21, 30 (1st Cir. 2001).

Council v. Southwest Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 996 (9th Cir. 2000).

Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 997 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that a reviewing court may examine both the notice itself and the behavior of its recipients to determine whether the party understood or reasonably should have understood the alleged violations based on the notice).

Council v. SW Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 995 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that redressability is established when a CWA citizen suit seeks injunctive relief).

Council v. SW Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 995 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that redressability is established when a CWA citizen suit seeks injunctive relief).

Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 1001 (9th Cir. 2000) (“If a district court finds a violation, then civil penalties . . . are manda- tory.”) (emphasis added).

Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 1001 (9th Cir. 2000) ("If a district court finds a violation, then civil penalties ... are mandatory.") (emphasis added).

Plaintiffs description of location and date is sufficient to permit the recipient to identify the specific standard, limitation, or order alleged to have been violated 40 C.F.R. § 135.3 (a); see also Southwest Marine, 236 F.3d at 996 (“Although the [notice] letter did’ not identify a specific date, or a specific location within South *1070 west Marine’s facility, it nevertheless satisfied those requirements as well.”). “[T]he failure to develop and implement pollution preven…

See NRDC v. Southwest Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d at 995 (“A plaintiff who seeks injunctive relief satisfies the requirement of redressability by alleging a continuing violation or the imminence of a future violation of an applicable statute or standard.”) (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 108 (1998)); see also Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl.

Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 996 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Nat.

Marine , 236 F.3d at 995 (alteration in original) (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Gaston Copper Recycling Corp. , 204 F.3d 149 , 161 (4th Cir. 2000) (en banc) ).

Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 995 (9th Cir. 2000) (“If a party seeking to bring a citizen enforcement action has not complied with the CWA’s notice requirement, then the district court in which that action is brought lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss the action.” (citations omitted)); see also Tan Phu Cuong Inv.

Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 995 (9th Cir. 6 2000) (“If a party seeking to bring a citizen enforcement action has not complied with 7 the CWA’s notice requirement, then the district court in which that action is brought 8 lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss the action.”).

Marine, 236 F.3d at 997 (“Subject matter jurisdiction is established 18 by providing a notice that is adequate on the date it is given to the defendant.”).

Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 997 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Natural Resources”).7 In Coastal and Natural Resources, the respective courts found a defendant’s conduct upon receipt of a 60-day notice was relevant to whether the 60-day notice conferred jurisdiction over specific alleged violations, rather than to whether the court had jurisdiction over the dispute in its entirety.

Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 1001-02 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Leslie 24 Salt Co. v. United States, 55 F.3d 1388, 1397 (9th Cir. 1995)).

E, at 33:23-34:4, 41:22-42:9; see also Southwest Marine, 236 F.3d at 997 (“Although we require strict compliance with the CWA’s notice requirement, we do not require citizen-plaintiffs to refer to provisions of plans that do not exist.”).

Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 995 (9th Cir. 2000).

Marine, Inc., 2 236 F.3d 985, 997 (9th Cir. 2000) (treating the question of remedies as different than questions 3 about the sufficiency of a 60-day notice). 4 It is Rule 8(a)(3) that governs the availability of remedies.

Defense Council v. Sw. 21 Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 998 (9th Cir. 2000).

Council v. SW Marin, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 1000 (9th Cir. 20 2000).

Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 997 (9th Cir. 2000)) must 22 show that the notice provided enough information that the defendant could “identify and 23 address the alleged violations, considering the defendant’s superior access to information 24 about its own activities” (Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr., 797 F.3d at 651 ). 25 26 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 4 1 The 2018 notice letter failed to serve its essential purposes with regards to the 2 a…

Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 995 (9th Cir. 2000); Karr v. Hefner, 475 F.3d 1192, 1200 (10th Cir. 2007).

“An injury is fairly traceable to a challenged action as 23 long as the links in the proffered chain of causation “are ‘not hypothetical or tenuous’ and remain 24 ‘plausib[le].’” AIR v. EPA, 10 F.4th at 943. 25 A plaintiff is not required to “show to a scientific certainty that defendant’s [actions] 26 caused the precise harm suffered by the plaintiffs[.]” Natural Resources Defense Council v. 27 Southwest Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 995 (9th Cir. 2000) (quotation omitted).

Marine, 15 Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 995 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).

Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 998 (9th Cir. 2000) 14 (“[T]he CWA’s notice requirement is strictly construed and . . . compliance with the notice 15 requirement is a prerequisite to a citizen enforcement action.”).

Council v. Sw. 19 Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 994 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 20 21 504 U.S. 555, 562-63 (1992) (“Of course, the desire to use or observe an animal species, 22 23 24 25 1 Defendants’ argument regarding the contingent and speculative nature of the claimed injury is misplaced.

Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 1001 (9th Cir. 2000).

Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 995 (9th Cir. 2000).

Marine, Inc., 19 236 F.3d 985, 998 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he CWA’s notice requirement is strictly construed 20 and . . . compliance with the notice requirement is a prerequisite to a citizen enforcement 21 22 1 Metropolitan’s motion is unopposed, see Dkt. 40, and is therefore GRANTED. 1 action.”).

Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 1001 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that penalties are mandatory if violation of CWA is found).

Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 997 (9th Cir. 2000)) must show 10 that the notice provided enough information that the defendant could “identify and address the 11 alleged violations, considering the defendant’s superior access to information about its own 12 13 activities” (Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr., 797 F.3d at 651 ).

Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 994 (9th Cir. 1 2000) (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t 2 Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000)) (alteration adopted). 3 1.

Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 1000 (9th Cir. 2000).

Marine, 2 Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 998 (9th Cir. 2000) (“the statute ‘confers jurisdiction over citizen suits 3 when the citizen-plaintiffs make a good-faith allegation of continuous or intermittent 4 violation.’” (quoting Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Found., Inc., 484 5 U.S. 49 , 64 (1987)).

Marine, Inc., 3 236 F.3d 985, 997 (9th Cir. 2000)) must show that the notice provided enough information that 4 the defendant could “identify and address the alleged violations, considering the defendant’s 5 superior access to information about its own activities” (Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr., 797 6 7 F.3d at 651). 8 Plaintiff’s notice letter, dated September 27, 2018, includes a general allegation that 9 defendants “are violating the ESA’s prohibition against ‘take’ of …

Marine, Inc., 10 236 F.3d 985, 997 (9th Cir. 2000)) must show that the notice provided enough information that 11 the defendant could “identify and address the alleged violations, considering the defendant’s 12 superior access to information about its own activities” (Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr., 797 13 14 F.3d at 651). 15 Plaintiff’s notice letter, dated September 27, 2018, includes a general allegation that 16 defendants “are violating the ESA’s prohibition against ‘ta…

Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 995 (9th Cir. 2000) (“A plaintiff who seeks injunctive relief satisfies the requirement of redressability by alleging a continuing violation.”).

Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 995 (9th Cir. 2000).

Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 997 (9th Cir. 2000)).

Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 998 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).

Council v. Southwest Marine, 7 Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 998 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that noncompliance with CWA’s notice 8 requirement requires dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). 9 A notice of an alleged violation “shall include sufficient information to permit the recipient 10 to identify the specific standard, limitation, or order alleged to have been violated, the activity 11 alleged to constitute a violation, the person or persons responsible for the alleged…

Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 998 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Chesapeake Bay Found., 844 F.2d at 171).

Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 995 (9th Cir. 2000)).

Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 995 (9th Cir. 2000)).