Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency et al.
Plaintiff: Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
Defendant: United States Environmental Protection Agency and Gina McCarthy
Case Number: 1:2016cv01251
Filed: February 18, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: New York
Presiding Judge: Edgardo Ramos
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 300
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
November 27, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 100 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on 99 granting Motion for Extension of Time to File. ENDORSEMENT: The request to extend, until November 29, 2023, the deadline to submit the joint letter or pre-motion conference request is granted. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 11/27/2023) (ama)
August 29, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 96 ORDER granting 95 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. The request to extend the date to submit a joint status report, until September 8, 2023, is granted. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 8/29/23) (yv)
August 25, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 94 ORDER: On October 27, 2020, the Court stayed this matter pending the D.C. Circuit's decision resolving NRDC v. Wheeler (Doc. 81), which Defendant U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") on May 12, 2023 advised was decided on May 9 , 2023 (Doc. 90). At the EPA's request, the Court extended the stay 90 days, until August 15, 2023, to allow the US to consider whether to pursue further review of NRDC v. Wheeler. As the deadline for the stay has now passed, the Court directs the parties to submit a joint status update by August 31, 2023 as to how they intend to proceed in the instant case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 8/25/2023) (ama)
May 17, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 91 ORDER granting 89 Letter Motion to Stay re: 89 LETTER MOTION to Stay (for extension of current stay) addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from AUSA Tomoko Onozawa dated May 12, 2023. On October 27, 2020, the Court stayed this matte r pending the D.C. Circuit's decision resolving NDRC v. Wheeler (Doc. 81), which Defendant U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") advised was decided May 9, 2023. EPA now seeks to extend the stay, and Plaintiff National Resources Defense Council consents to an extension of no more than 90 days. The Court extends the stay 90 days, until August 15, 2023. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 5/17/2023) (tg)
October 27, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 81 OPINION & ORDER: For all of these reasons, the Court stays this case, including its decision on the EPA's motion to terminate the consent decree, Doc. 63, and the NRDC's motion to enforce it, Doc. 70, pending the D.C. Circuit's decision resolving Wheeler. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 10/27/2020) (mro)
June 19, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 67 ORDER: On June 18, 2020, defendant the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") filed a motion to terminate the consent decree entered on October 18, 2016 ("Termination Motion"). Docs. 38, 63, 64, 65. The EPA concu rrently filed a letter requesting that the Court accept its Termination Motion without a pre-motion conference and set a briefing schedule. Doc. 62 at 1 n.1, 3. The EPA further requested that the Court stay the June 19, 2020 deadline under the con sent decree to issue a final perchlorate drinking water regulation until after decision on the Termination Motion. Id. at 3. In response, plaintiff the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. ("NRDC") requested leave to file a motion to enforce the consent decree and opposed the EPA's request for a stay. Doc. 66. The Court accepts the Termination Motion and directs the NRDC to submit any opposition and its cross-motion by July 9, 2020, and the EPA to submit its reply and resp onse to the cross-motion by July 30, 2020, and the NRDC to submit its reply by August 13, 2020. The Court also stays the June 19, 2020 deadline under the consent decree for issuing a final rule on perchlorate until the Court issues its decision on the motions. It is SO ORDERED. (Cross Motions due by 7/9/2020., Responses due by 7/30/2020, Replies due by 8/13/2020.) (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 6/19/2020) (rro)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency et al.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
Represented By: Sarah Valentine Fort
Represented By: Nancy Sharman Marks
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: United States Environmental Protection Agency
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Gina McCarthy
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?