San Francisco Baykeeper v. Sunnyvale

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaSeptember 14, 20235:20-cv-00824California4,537 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER, Lead Case No. 5:20-cv-00824-EJD Plaintiff, Consolidated with No. 5:20-cv-00826-EJD 9 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS CITY OF SUNNYVALE, et al., Defendants. Re: ECF No. 143

Plaintiff, San Francisco Baykeeper (“Baykeeper”), initiated this suit against Defendants 14 City of Sunnyvale and City of Mountain View (“Cities”) under the citizen suit enforcement 15 provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. (“Clean Water 16 Act”), to address the Cities’ allegedly unlawful discharge of bacteria pollution from their 17 municipal storm sewer systems. First Am. Compl. (“FAC”), ECF No. 19. The Cities now move 18 to dismiss Baykeeper’s Second Amended Complaint, arguing that a new permit issued in 2022 19 changes the legal landscape. Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss (“Mot. Dismiss”), ECF No. 143. For the 20 reasons stated below, the Cities’ motion to dismiss is DENIED. 21…

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.