California River Watch v. City of Vacaville

Good Law
14 F.4th 1076
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 29, 202120-16605California7,096 words

Opinion

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CALIFORNIA RIVER WATCH, No. 20-16605 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:17-cv-00524-

KJM-KJN

CITY OF VACAVILLE,

Defendant-Appellee. OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 14, 2021 San Francisco, California

Filed September 29, 2021

Before: A. Wallace Tashima and Patrick J. Bumatay, Circuit Judges, and Douglas L. Rayes, * District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Bumatay; Dissent by Judge Tashima

* The Honorable Douglas L. Rayes, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. SUMMARY **

Environmental Law

The panel vacated the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the City of Vacaville and remanded for further proceedings in a citizen suit brought by California River Watch under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

River Watch claimed that the City’s water wells were contaminated by a carcinogen called hexavalent chromium, which in turn…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.