Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 12
Dine' Citizens Against Ruining, et al v. USEPA, et al
as 18-71481
: In re: DINE' CITIZENS AGAINST RUINING THE ENVIRONMENT, SAN JUAN CITIZENS ALLIANCE, CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY and others
Petitioner: DINE' CITIZENS AGAINST RUINING THE ENVIRONMENT, SAN JUAN CITIZENS ALLIANCE, CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY and others
Respondent: U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ALEXIS STRAUSS, Acting Regional Administor USEPA Region 9 and TOMAS TORRES, Director, Water Division, USEPA Region 9
Demoruelle v. Pruitt et al
as 1:2018cv00172
Plaintiff: Sandra Lee Demoruelle
Defendant: F. Scott Pruitt and Alexis Strauss
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702
Town of Florence, et al v. USEPA, et al
as 17-73170
Petitioner: TOWN OF FLORENCE, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona and SWVP-GTIS MR, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company
Respondent: U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, SCOTT PRUITT, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency and ALEXIS STRAUSS, Acting Regional Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9
Town of Florence, et al v. USEPA, et al
as 17-73170
Petitioner: TOWN OF FLORENCE, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona and SWVP-GTIS MR, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company
Respondent: U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, SCOTT PRUITT, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency and ALEXIS STRAUSS, Acting Regional Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9
Intervenor: FLORENCE COPPER, INC.
Town of Florence, et al v. USEPA, et al
as 17-73168
Petitioner: TOWN OF FLORENCE, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona and SWVP-GTIS MR, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company
Respondent: U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, SCOTT PRUITT, administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency and ALEXIS STRAUSS, Acting Regional Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9
Town of Florence, et al v. USEPA, et al
as 17-73168
Petitioner: TOWN OF FLORENCE, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona and SWVP-GTIS MR, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company
Respondent: U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, SCOTT PRUITT, administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency and ALEXIS STRAUSS, Acting Regional Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9
Intervenor: FLORENCE COPPER, INC.
Los Angeles Waterkeeper et al v. Pruitt et al
as 2:2017cv03454
Plaintiff: American Rivers, Los Angeles Waterkeeper and Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
Defendant: Scott Pruitt, Alexis Strauss and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Los Angeles Waterkeeper, et al v. Scott Pruitt, et al
as 17-70570
Petitioner: LOS ANGELES WATERKEEPER, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC. and AMERICAN RIVERS
Respondent: SCOTT PRUITT, in his official capacity as Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ALEXIS STRAUSS, in her official capacity as Acting Regional Administrator for Region IX of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Association of Irritated Residents et al v. Environmental Protection Agency et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 3:2017cv00720
Plaintiff: Association of Irritated Residents , Center For Biological Diversity , Climate Change Law Foundation and others
Defendant: Environmental Protection Agency , Catherine McCabe and Alexis Strauss
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 7413
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE OF PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS et al v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY et al
as 2:2016at01510
Plaintiff: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE OF PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS , CENTRAL VALLEY CLEAN WATER ASSOCIATION , NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN WATER AGENCIES and others
Defendant: UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and ALEXIS STRAUSS
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702

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?