Communities for a Better Environment v. Cenco Refining Co.
180 F. Supp. 2d 1062·2001 WL 1669377·53 ERC (BNA) 1534·2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10203
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJune 22, 2001CV 00-5665 AHM(AIJx)California11,994 words
Opinion
Opinion
Matz, J.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION.1067
II. FACTS.1068
A. The Parties.1068
B. Legal Background.1068
C. CBE’s Allegations of Fact.1069
D. CBE’s Causes of Action.1072
III. ANALYSIS.1073
A. Rule 12(b)(6) Standards.1073
B. Standing.1074
C. Subject Matter Jurisdiction.1076
a. CBE Alleges Violations of Specific, Concrete State Implementation Plan Provisions .1077
b. An Alleged Violation of SIP Provisions Requiring the Application of Best Available Control Technology and New Source Review to New Facility Permit Applications Constitutes Violation of “Any Other Standard, Limitation or Schedule Established under Any Applicable State Implementation Plan” and “Any Requirement to Obtain a Permit” Under Section 7604 .1080
D. Claims Under SIP Rules 209 and 806 .1084
a. Rule 209 .1084
b. Rule 806 .1085
E. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies.1086
F. Abstention.1087
G. Supplemental State Law Claims.1087
a. Common Nucleus of Operative Facts.1088
b. Failure to Join a Party Under Rule 19 .1089
IV. CONCLUSION. .1089
I. INTRODUCTION
This lawsuit stems from the reactivation and proposed modification of a petroleum refinery located in…