Page 224 - California Stormwater Workshop Handouts

California Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. All Star Auto..., 860 F.Supp.2d 1144...
75 ERC 1628
12(b)(1).
Plaintiff attached two exhibits to the FAC, which the
Court may consider. The two exhibits are the notices of
violations and intent to sue that Plaintiff sent to
Defendants prior to filing this lawsuit. Defendants filed a
Request for Judicial Notice (Doc. # 11) along with the
Motion to Dismiss, seeking judicial notice of copies of the
annual reports filed by defendants with the Water Quality
Control Board (Exhibit A) and a copy of Defendants’
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(“NPDES”) permit (Exhibit B). Defendants assert that
judicial notice of these documents is proper because they
are from the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board, an administrative body. Plaintiff filed an
opposition (Doc. # 14) to Defendants’ request for judicial
notice of Exhibit A, contending that the records submitted
are not a true and exact copy of the document that was
filed with the Water Quality Control Board, because it is
incomplete. Plaintiff, who obtained a copy of same
document from the Water Quality Control Board, has
identified the six sections that it asserts are missing, and injury to the members of CSPA, rests on vague
filed a copy of what Plaintiff asserts is the complete
document. In response, Defendants submitted an affidavit
from an employee of their copy service, attesting that he
copied all records that were produced to him by the Water
Quality Control *1149 Board, and that he gave all the
copied documents to Defendants’ attorneys.
Because the authenticity of Exhibit A has been
questioned, and the Court has been given two different
versions of purportedly the same record, the Court will
not take judicial notice of Exhibit A at this time. The
Court will take judicial notice of Exhibit B, as Exhibit B
is a matter of public record whose authenticity has not
been challenged.
4. Evidentiary Objections
Defendants filed evidentiary objections (Doc. # 15, Ex.
16) to the affidavits (Doc. # 13, Exs. 2, 3, 4 & 5) filed by lawsuit.” Hunt v. Washington State Apple Adver.
Plaintiff’s members regarding their standing. Defendants
object to several paragraphs in each affidavit, on the
grounds that they violate Federal Rules of Evidence 402,
602, 701 and 802, by containing evidence that is not
relevant, inadmissible hearsay, scientific or technical
testimony or opinions from lay people, or matters not
within the affiant’s personal knowledge. Having reviewed
the affidavits and objections, the Court finds as follows:
Declaration of Bill Jennings: Objections to paragraphs 6,
9, 20 and 23 are overruled. Objections to paragraphs 15,
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
19 and 22 are sustained. Objections to paragraph 21 are
sustained but only as to the second sentence. Objections
to paragraph 26 are sustained other than the first sentence.
Declaration of Jim Crenshaw: Objections to paragraph 5
are overruled. Objections to paragraph 8 are overruled as
to the first sentence and sustained as to the second
sentence. Objections to paragraph 9 are sustained.
Declaration of Barbara Vlamis: Objections to paragraph
9, 11, 14 and 15 are sustained. Objections to paragraph 10
are overruled.
Declaration of Chris Shutes: Objection to paragraphs 6, 9,
and 12 are sustained. Objections to paragraph 10 are
sustained other than the first sentence.
B. Dismissal For Lack of Standing
Defendants contend that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring
the claims alleged in the FAC. Defendants argue that the
FAC fails to properly allege a concrete, individualized
allegations of generalized injury, and is not accompanied
by affidavits setting forth allegations of concrete injuries.
Plaintiff’s opposition, which was accompanied by
declarations from four members of CSPA, asserts that the
allegations of the FAC sufficiently establish standing.
[4] Standing is a “threshold question in every federal case,
determining the power of the court to entertain the suit.”
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45
L.Ed.2d 343 (1975). An Article III federal court must ask
whether a plaintiff has suffered sufficient injury to satisfy
the “case or controversy” requirement of Article III. An
association has standing to bring suit on behalf of its
members when “(a) its members would otherwise have
standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks
to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and
(c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested
requires the participation of individual members in the
Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343, 97 S.Ct. 2434, 53 L.Ed.2d
383 (1977).
The individual members have standing if they can
demonstrate that an actual or threatened injury exists,
which is fairly traceable to the challenged action, and that
such injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable
decision. Ecological Rights Found. v. Pac. Lumber Co.,
230 F.3d 1141, 1147 (9th Cir.2000). A suit brought by a
plaintiff without Article III standing is not *1150 a “case
or controversy,” and an Article III federal court therefore
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the suit. Steel Co. v.
5