Case ID: f-appx_690/html/0479-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Richard COREY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-16429
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted April 19, 2017 San Francisco, California
    Filed April 26, 2017
    Daniel Eric Cohen, Paul D. Cullen, Jr., The Cullen Law Firm, PLLC, Washington, DC, Brian C. Leighton, Attorney, Law Offices of Brian C. Leighton, Clovis, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants
    Courtney Suzanne Covington, Attorney, Linda Lea Gandara, Deputy Attorney General, Nicholas Stern, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, John Seiichi Sasaki, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appel-lees
    Before: REINHARDT and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc. appeals the district court’s order dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction its challenge to Appel-lees’ enforcement of the Truck and Bus Regulation, an EPA-approved rule concerning heavy vehicle emissions. Because, “as a practical matter,” the Association’s suit challenges the EPA Administrator’s final action in approving the Regulation as part of California’s State Implementation Plan, we affirm. Cal. Dump Truck Owner’s Ass’n v. Nichols, 784 F.3d 500, 507 (9th Cir. 2015), cert. denied — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 403, 193 L.Ed.2d 315 (2015). See also 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). We need not reach the issue of whether the EPA was a necessary and indispensable party to the action,

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.