Coalition for Clean Air v. VWR International, LLC
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16268
| E.D. Cal. | 2013Background
- Plaintiffs allege VWR violated San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rule 9510 by failing to obtain an ISR permit before open/operating a Visalia distribution facility.
- Project located at 8711 W. Riggin Avenue, Visalia, within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin; construction began January 2011 and operations started September 2012.
- City of Visalia approved the project in November 2010; SPRC directed changes and noted Rule 9510 applicability; VWR did not apply for ISR permit at any point.
- Prior determinations from the City and the District concluded no discretionary approval was required, leading to a District finding that Rule 9510 did not apply.
- A state court CEQA/mandamus action progressed, with a stipulated judgment tying Rule 9510 implications to discretionary approvals; state court proceeding ongoing while federal action proceeds.
- Court denies some motions, stays the case under Colorado River pending resolution of state court interpretation of VMC § 17.28.040A; Burford abstention denied; proceeding remains stayed pending state court outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue under the CAA | Plaintiffs allege redressable injury from Rule 9510 noncompliance. | Rule 9510 injuries are not redressable due to mitigate-or-pay structure. | Standing exists; claims are redressable. |
| Rule 9510 as emission standard or limitation | Rule 9510 constitutes an emission standard/limitation under 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a). | Rule 9510 is not an emission standard or limitation. | DENIED; Rule 9510 plausibly falls within scope. |
| Continuing violation requirement | Rule 9510 entails ongoing obligations, not a one-time violation. | If only a preconstruction permit is involved, violation may be singular. | ABeyance; court will address continuing-harm question after Colorado River stay lifts. |
| Burford abstention | State CEQA processes are parallel and require federal court deference. | Burford applies due to California CEQA framework. | DENIED. |
| Colorado River abstention | State court resolution will resolve federal questions, avoiding duplication. | State and federal actions are parallel but distinct. | GRANTED; stay of federal proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.2d 390 (5th Cir.1974) (broad interpretation of emission standards and limitations)
- City of Santa Rosa v. EPA, 534 F.2d 150 (9th Cir.1976) (emission-control measures under SIPs interpreted within § 7604)
- League to Save Lake Tahoe, Inc. v. Town of Truckee, 598 F.2d 1164 (9th Cir.1979) (ISR measures as transportation control measures within § 7604(f)(3))
- Sierra Club v. Otter Tail Power Co., 615 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir.2010) (CAA permit requirements can be ongoing; duration matters for statute of limitations)
- National Parks & Conservation Assn. v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 502 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir.2007) (ongoing permit obligations and statute-of-limitations considerations)
- R.R. Street & Co. v. United States, 656 F.3d 966 (9th Cir.2011) (Colorado River factors and stay considerations)
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) (framework for exceptional circumstances in federal-state stays)