Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

North Dakota v. McCarthy, 1:13-cv-109. (2019)

Court: District Court, D. North Dakota Number: infdco20190423750 Visitors: 12
Filed: Apr. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 19, 2019
Summary: ORDER CHARLES S. MILLER, JR. , Magistrate Judge . This case concerns claims by the Plaintiffs that the EPA failed to perform a non-discretionary action under the federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et. seq. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege the EPA has failed to designate areas of the country as attaining, not attaining, or unclassifiable under the revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard for sulfur dioxide as required by Section 7407(d)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act. Actions hav
More

ORDER

This case concerns claims by the Plaintiffs that the EPA failed to perform a non-discretionary action under the federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et. seq. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege the EPA has failed to designate areas of the country as attaining, not attaining, or unclassifiable under the revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard for sulfur dioxide as required by Section § 7407(d)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act.

Actions have been filed against the EPA in three different federal district courts seeking to compel the EPA to perform the nondiscretionary duty at issue. The Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. filed the first complaint in the Northern District of California on August 26, 2013. Sierra Club et al. v. McCarthy, N.D. Cal. Case No. 13-cv-3953-SI. The Plaintiffs in this action filed their complaint on September 12, 2013. The State of North Carolina filed a complaint in the Eastern District of North Carolina on October 9, 2013. State of North Carolina v. McCarthy, E.D.N.C. Case No. 5:13-cv-710-F.

The North Carolina case was stayed pending the outcome of the California case. The above-entitled action was likewise stayed; on May 13, 2014, this Court granted defendant's motion to hold this matter in abeyance, stayed this matter pending further order, and directed the parties to file a joint status report within 120 days. (Doc. No. 20).

On September 10, 2014, the parties filed a Joint Status Report. More than four years have since passed. Accordingly, the parties are directed file another joint status report within 120 days updating this Court on the posture of the California case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer