San Francisco Baykeeper v. Sunnyvale

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaDecember 11, 20235:20-cv-00824California3,182 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER, Case No. 5:20-cv-00824-EJD

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

v.

CITY OF SUNNYVALE, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 186 Defendants.

I. BACKGROUND On June 27, 2023, the Court granted Defendants City of Sunnyvale and City of Mountainview’s (collectively, “the Cities”) leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s summary judgment order (“Prior Order”) solely as to the question of whether Sackett v. Env't Prot. Agency, 598 U.S. 651 (2023), affects the Court’s conclusion that the bodies of water at issue in this case are “Waters of the United States” (“WOTUS”) under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”). Order Re Intervening Change of Law, ECF No. 183; see also Order Granting Summ. J. (“Prior Order”), ECF No. 139. The Court found additional discovery unnecessary for the motion for reconsideration and allowed the parties to refer only to existing discovery taken. …

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.