Foster et al v. United States Environmental Protection Agency et al
|Ron Foster, Foster Farms, LLC and Marketing & Planning Specialists Limited Partnership
|United States Environmental Protection Agency and Gina McCarthy
|May 21, 2014
|US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
|John T. Copenhaver
|Nature of Suit:
|Other Statutory Actions
|Cause of Action:
|33 U.S.C. § 1319
|Jury Demanded By:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|August 29, 2019
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RESPECTING REMEDIES directing that within 120 days of the date of this order, the counterclaim defendants submit to the EPA an evaluation of the number of credits necessary to compensate for impacts to waters of the Unite d States resulting from the loss of the stream segments; the EPA shall notify the counterclaim defendants and the court whether it agrees that the West Virginia Stream Wetland and Valuation Metric has been correctly calculated; if the EPA agrees with the calculation, the counterclaim defendants have 90 days to purchase those credits from a stream mitigation bank, unless within 30 days after receipt of the EPA's agreement with the calculation, the counterclaim defendants file a motion seekin g review thereof; if the EPA does not agree with the calculation and the parties are unable to resolve the issue by agreement within 60 days after the EPA's rejection, the counterclaim defendants have another 30 days to file a motion seeking rev iew thereof; once the court has been notified that the credits have been purchased or has ruled on a review thereof as the case may be, a final judgment order carrying into effect the foregoing will be entered; if the counterclaim defendants, within the initial 120-days, fail to submit to the EPA the evaluation described above, any party to this action may seek entry of a final judgment order herein. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 8/29/2019. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (kew)
|August 14, 2017
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part defendants' 181 MOTION for Summary Judgment; granting said motion with respect to plaintiffs' procedural due process claim, plaintiffs' First Amendment retaliat ion claim, and reasonableness of the ACO pertaining to RR4 only; and otherwise denying said motion; granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' 183 MOTION for Summary Judgment; granting said motion with respect to the reasonableness of the ACO pertaining to RR1, RR2, and RR3; and otherwise denying said motion. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 8/14/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (taq)
|November 3, 2016
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER this matter is recommitted to the magistrate judge to address the substance of plaintiffs' 133 motion for production of documents claimed privileged; directing that plaintiffs' 159 objections to the mag istrate judge's order are sustained; the magistrate judge's 154 order dated 9/26/2016 is vacated; discovery in this case is reopened with respect to plaintiffs' First Amendment retaliation claim, as set forth in an amended sched uling order entered this same date; and this matter is recommitted to the magistrate judge as heretofore and, specifically, to hear and determine: the merits of plaintiffs' request for the use of forensic discovery to ascertain the origin of the Political Research Document and, if found appropriate, the extent to which forensic discovery is to be ordered; and the substance of plaintiffs' request for production respecting documents claimed privileged; the court notes that the new accompanying scheduling order is necessitated by the recent diversionary litigation that has culminated in the magistrate judge's order of 9/26/2016, and this order by the court, and as directed and set forth more fully herein. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 11/3/2016. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (taq)
|August 22, 2016
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER concluding that plaintiffs will be permitted to amend their complaint to include a First Amendment retaliation claim, but not to include a substantive due process or "class of one" equal protection claim; dire cting that plaintiffs submit, within 15 days, a revised Second Amended Complaint that more explicitly includes a First Amendment retaliation claim among the causes of action, along with the amended factual material presented in the proposed second amended complaint; granting the 117 MOTION for leave to file a second amended complaint to the extent set forth herein, and is otherwise denied. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 8/22/2016. (cc: attys; any unrepresented parties) (taq)
|September 30, 2015
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part the EPA's 31 MOTION to Dismiss the Third, Fourth, and (in part) First Claims for Relief asserted in the 25 Amended Complaint; granting with respect to the plaintiffs' s ubstantive due process and equal protection claims; directing that the Fourth Claim for Relief is dismissed in its entirety; to the extent that the complaint seeks relief for these claims elsewhere in the complaint, directing that such claims are also dismissed; denying with respect to the plaintiffs' procedural due process claim. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 9/30/2015. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (tmh)
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 West Virginia Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?