Wheat Legal PLLC Seattle Business Law Firm

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1
BACKGROUND ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3
PARTIES AND STANDING …………………………………………………………………………………………… 9
STANDARD OF REVIEW……………………………………………………………………………………………. 10
ARGUMENT……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 11
I. EPA HAS DETERMINED THAT REVISED HUMAN HEALTH
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS BASED UPON A CORRECTED
FISH CONSUMPTION RATE ARE NECESSARY TO MEET THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT. ………………………………….. 11
II. EPA‟S DETERMINATION TRIGGERED A MANDATORY DUTY
FOR EPA TO PROMULGATE THE REVISED STANDARD BY
DECEMBER 14, 2015, AND EPA IS IN VIOLATION OF THAT DUTY…….. 12
III. WATERKEEPERS WASHINGTON REQUESTS AN ORDER
DIRECTING EPA TO ACT WITHIN A SET TIME……………………………………. 14
CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 15
Case 2:16-cv-00293-JLR Document 4 Filed 03/01/16 Page 2 of 22
PLAINTIFFS‟ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THERETO
(No. 2:16-cv-00293-JLR) -ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES PAGE(S)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
477 U.S. 242 (1986)…………………………………………………………………………………………………..10
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317 (1986)…………………………………………………………………………………………………..10
Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Espy,
814 F. Supp. 142 (D.D.C. 1993)………………………………………………………………………………….15
Idaho Conservation League, Inc., v. Russell,
946 F.2d 717 (9th Cir. 1991) ………………………………………………………………………………………13
Nw. Envtl. Advocates v. EPA,
268 F. Supp. 2d 1255 (D. Or. 2003) ……………………………………………………………………….12, 13
Puget Soundkeeper All. v. U.S. E.P.A.,
No. C13-1839-JCC, 2014 WL 4674393 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 18, 2014)……………………………..13
Raymond Proffitt Found. v. EPA,
930 F. Supp. 1088 (E.D. Pa. 1996)………………………………………………………………………………13
U.S. v. Akers,
785 F.2d 814 (9th Cir. 1986) …………………………………………………………………………………14, 15
Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo,
456 U.S. 305 (1982)…………………………………………………………………………………………………..14
STATUTES
33 U.S.C. § 1251(a) ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….3
33 U.S.C. § 1313………………………………………………………………………………………………….13, 14, 15
33 U.S.C. § 1313(a) and (b)……………………………………………………………………………………………….3
33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(4)…………………………………………………………………………………………….. passim
33 U.S.C. § 1365…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….15
33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(2)………………………………………………………………………………………………………9
OTHER AUTHORITIES
40 C.F.R. § 130.3……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3
Case 2:16-cv-00293-JLR Document 4 Filed 03/01/16 Page 3 of 22
PLAINTIFFS‟ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THERETO
(No. 2:16-cv-00293-JLR) -iii
40 C.F.R. § 131.4……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3
40 C.F.R. § 131.5……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3
40 C.F.R. § 130.10……………………………………………………………………………………………………………3
40 C.F.R. § 131.11……………………………………………………………………………………………………………3
40 C.F.R. § 131.20……………………………………………………………………………………………………………3
40 C.F.R. § 131.21……………………………………………………………………………………………………………3
40 C.F.R. § 131.22(b) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..12
40 C.F.R. § 131.36…………………………………………………………………………………………………….4, 5, 7
80 Fed. Reg. 55,063 (Sept. 14, 2015) ………………………………………………………………………… passim
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….10
Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure …………………………………………………………………………..1
Wash. Admin. Code. § 173-201A-240(5) (2011)………………………………………………………………….4

This is copypasta of what a winning summary judgment motion looks like.   It is intended to be a seed database for training algorithms to detect ‘successful’ features of litigation paperwork.  It is intended to be machine readable less than human readable.  The original is accessible via this link: here.     FILED 12 SEP […]