This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Environmental Law
Environmental Protection
Administrative Complaint

Maria Garcia, David Garcia, Angelica Guzman v. Gina McCarthy, Jared Blumenfeld, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Published: Feb. 8, 2014 | Result Date: Jan. 16, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 3:13-cv-03939-WHO Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Brent J. Newell

Michael L. Meuter
(California Rural Legal Assistance Inc.)

Madeline Stano

Virginia Ruiz


Defendant

Justin Sandberg


Facts

Maria Garcia and other parents of Latino schoolchildren in public schools filed an administrative complaint with the Environmental Protection Agency, alleging that the California Department of Pesticide Regulation violated the Civil Rights Act. They claimed that the Department of Pesticide Regulation exposed the schoolchildren to toxic pesticides in a harmful and discriminatory manner.

While the EPA accepted the complaint, they did not issue a finding within 180 days, as required. Twelve years later the EPA issuee its preliminary finding, and concluded that the Department of Pesticide Regulation did cause an excessive exposure to the schoolchildren. The EPA and the Department of Pesticide Regulation later settled, and entered into a compliance agreement.

However, Garcia and other parents found that the settlement did not do enough, and filed suit against the EPA.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for arbitrary and capricious agency action, or denial of procedural due process, and injunctive relief. They sought a declaration that the EPA had acted arbitrarily and capriciously when settling its case with the Department of Pesticide Regulation, and requested that the court vacate and dismiss the settlement agreement.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The EPA moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

Result

The court found it lacked jurisdiction over the case, and dismissed it.


#100405

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390