In re Clean Water Act Rulemaking ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 In re No. C 20-04636 WHA No. C 20-04869 WHA 11 CLEAN WATER ACT No. C 20-06137 WHA RULEMAKING. 12 (Consolidated) 13 This Document Relates to: 14 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION ALL ACTIONS. AS MOOT AND WITHOUT 15 PREJUDICE 16 17 Thanks to all counsel for the responses to the order to show cause (Dkt. Nos. 234–36). 18 This consolidated action is moot. 19 As defendants observe, “[a] case that becomes moot at any point during the proceedings 20 is ‘no longer a “Case” or “Controversy” for purposes of Article III,’ and is outside the 21 jurisdiction of the federal courts.” United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, 584 U.S. 381, 385–86 22 (2018) (quoting Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013)). Our court of appeals has 23 made it clear that “[t]he basic question in determining mootness is whether there is a present 24 controversy as to which effective relief can be granted.” Feldman v. Bomar, 518 F.3d 637, 642 25 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Nw. Env’t Def. Ctr. v. Gordon, 849 F.2d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 1988)). 26 Here, plaintiffs challenge EPA’s 2020 Rule, seeking an order to “set aside” that 2020 27 Rule and remand it to the agency. But there is no question that the 2020 Rule is no longer in 1 controversy as to which effective relief can be granted. That there is a possibility the 2023 2 Rule could be enjoined and the 2020 Rule could be reinstated does not alter this reality. 3 Plaintiffs could, in that event, challenge the 2020 Rule if it were resurrected. Accordingly, the 4 action is DISMISSED as moot and without prejudice. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: January 24, 2024. 8 ILLIAM ALSUP 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 © 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28