literally everybody can sue anybody for any reason whatsoever and even worse they can seek attorneys fees so what we're talking about today would be a very massive expansion of the clean air act and that's not what would be appropriate in the reason court said in dismissing the plaintiff's cause of action said that you did not even though we're talking of five oil factories much bigger than that then the harm to hand in my case you do not have the redress ability in the cause  in his closet or if people backyard can't get you if you put that requirement on it can you ever have a citizen suit i mean that was one of the points that have the district court made in this case it is a and well respected part of our law they're very important part of our process of cleaning up the environment and they've worked very well for countless years of point source in areas lost pollutants they have not yet historically never been used for local sources and the reason for that is because federal agencies and state agencies are much better suited to enforce these sorts of things no different that in the federal government's ability to regulate interstate commerce or state banking railways government the e p a as they regulatory agencies even police officers have the right to ticket people when they are you know driving polluting cars with their cars are too loud but if we allow the infant test scientifically that allows neighbors to see neighbors and even worse allows neighbors of tsunami of course you might note in the file that my client was hell i will for penalties for conduct that was outside the state of utah for part th were shipped all the way to florida two thousand miles away is undisputed we're talking about the utah physicians for health the environment not the floridian and the south carolina but my point nonetheless was held liable for penalties for conduct that happened out of state and that that runs afoul all the geographical limitations outlined in the case law chevron chemical transcend chase the bellman case everybody has to still prove with concrete in particular last farm what they have done to give a little bit of context which i think is important my clients are famous stripper they have and they have a show on discovery channel to makes it look like they pump out lots of trucks over a five year period we're talking about thirty one dollars trucks total zero or which all of the ones that were given away and sweepstakes were given away out of state not disputed and only three of the trucks were given away are still in huge off three trucks and nine parts is what we're talking about three trucks nine parts stayed in the state of utah the result here even if we go to high watermark of thirty one trucks and eighty eight partners we're not talking about a v w chase we're not talking about a big factory that pumps these things out on a daily this is a very small number in fact these trucks i wish i could show them the report some pictures these are what if what if you had some of your drops were at a racetrack and my house was right next to us and these trucks were in there you know s diesel white exhaust and they were coming that exhaust was coming over an aggravating medical condition do you think that i would have concrete enough injury and that you know being the next door neighbor period of five years that's forty pounds of emissions over five years and a good if i concur that much with one are so we're talking about average of eight pounds per year in a state has eighty four thousand square view to not just the clean air act if any litigant has any federal claim that they want to come in they can always say oh yeah i know that these are other case there's only one billionth of a chance that their emissions actually cause physical harm or made its way into the long lines let me ask you about the greenhouse gases because there everybody in the world suffers the same that and the supreme court has made it i think reasonably clear that if you can't distinguish yourself from everybody else in the world then you don't have standing but here the plaintiffs can distinguish themselves from others in the world because they're in this the wa tash front area where the pollution exists it's hard for me to see any precedent for the limitation you you you suggest for standing in incurred by the end of trial and you see that casting aspersions i say that that were going to be just to be a high incentive for attorneys to go pursue these types of cases against anybody when the state is much better position to do this and that's why the massachusetts there's no other questions your honour's then i'll yield my time i can't we're going to hear from a happily george is my co counsel and i'd like to reserve several minutes of for his time to the extent there are questions of the penalty your honour's the airship in the salt lake city area has been plagued by air pollution for a number of years there have been many efforts including  to improve the air quality by forcing all requiring no drive to converting diesel classes to go to natural gas in the light of all that we have a group in that same airship of man and companies making money deliberately removing emission controls from diesel vehicles installing defeat hearts and diesel vehicles selling parts to others selling to keep parts of others so that they can put their parts in their vehicles and drive in these high polluting that your interpretation of the act is going to allow me to sue my neighbor varjak not as catalytic converter is not true under your theory if i know why neighbor took office catalytic converter to defeat the emissions system can i can i so i'm under the clean air act as a as a theoretical matter your honor i believe yes that would be a violation of the of the clean air act to the extent you had standing that is you had your personal injuries associated with the emissions coming off of a fully deleted vehicle yes as e p a would and as you've seen with this the state would but the filing fee alone is four hundred dollars to bring one of these cases if you look at the  against them but not one of these cases these are heavy lift that take quite a lot of time and the reason we brought this one was the the significance of the emissions from the the diesel brothers vehicles and their sort of public displays of them that were informing other people of how to do it understand your honor when we took one of these vehicles and had it tested it showed that it was its emissions had increased thirty six dollars times what the emissions are of a stock  just coming out of the factory all it takes then is a these are super spreaders and if you have just two to three percent of your fleet modified in this way they if you tried to expand that to a nationwide heart do you still have standing or have you not tried to make that case we did not try to make that case and i think if you were the not exactly that is and it's under judge shelby's ruling he said we were unable to recall those parks or recall those vehicles as part of our  because the conduct occurred in the wasatch front and in utah and that conduct either caused injuries or threatened to cause injuries  utah plaintiffs they were still subject to penalty so we were trying to stop the conduct but we were and judge shelby ruled that we were unable to just seems inconsistent i mean we're looking at what the harm is i think for as opposed to what the act is and the harm is undisputedly as to some of these vehicles and parts occurring outside the airship that's the subject of your case because a great spanned it then you have no case because you you can't particularize your harm so you have to keep it narrowed down into the valley there but at the same time you want to to recover penalties for harms that are occurring elsewhere and i just see an inconsistency i'm wondering how we're supposed through through that well let's look at one example which is the sale of the parts they were selling parts to anyone who would buy them over the internet those parts or are sold to people in utah outside of utah those parts may be sold to someone and in a neighboring or sister state and wyoming that then drives that vehicle back to utah it's very difficult ministr sort of divide up that their conduct and say well some of this is prohibited if you sell within a zip code of utah but all of those outside of the zip codes  in it's open season so i think that under the constitution to establish injury one needs to show either a concrete injury or a concrete threatened injury and it's the threatened injury that we believe is it is sufficient to at least support a penalization of those sales to then deter that that practice that is as a practical matter again very hard to distance divided up state by state or zip code by zip code well you don't have standing just because you're offended by  that there needs to be a meaningful contribution i'm not aware of support for that theory i think if there's been some pollution in the wasatch front area and you live there you have standing with respect to that injury but if something is shipped to montana and so there's a threat of injury in the wasatch front that seems a bit deluded to me do you have do you have any case law regarding this type of threat and injury and is it your theory would would allow someone in massachusetts to have brought this case because there's a threat that these vehicles will be driven in massachusetts and pollute issue here all occurred in utah so we had standing but that's not the basis of your of your standing it's not that there was a statutory violation everybody can be offended by that people who watch the show could be very offended by that it's the if you've got to show some harm or as you say threatened arm which maybe maybe that's the basis of your standing but i'd like some help on that if you have some cases on that yes i know i don't have a case on that because these are mobile sources that move around obviously and and internet sales that then occur and take place in one state and be transferred to another but what we established was the the violations on the conduct that was causing injuries within the state and that threaten the cause of those injuries just by virtue of the fact that they're selling those parks in utah and could be purchased by consumers in utah and if they someone in utah purchases it then you have a claim you have standing you can distinguish between these cases i mean there's not a difficult factual issue of determining where the park was delivered or for use is there it's not publicly available your honor  discovery you can as we did in this case find where the parts went to how many they sold and how many were it illegal like the  yes but i think it does sort of balkanized the practice of the state of the law where then you can move your operation to wyoming and sell all the parts into utah in utah law as i understand it you look at the person who won to determine whether that ticket was purchased do we know with respect to the people who got the trucks through the lot of three whether they bought anything from the defendants to get the ticket or whether they just requested a lottery ticket do we have that information in the record  chance to rant then there were other individuals who could just send in a free postcard or a letter and get a chance to win the but i don't know the percentage was they reach when or whether that person bought any tickets made a purchase to get a ticket or got it without providing any consideration do you know that i don't know that i remember from the videos where they he had an obligation to under the statute and he looked at their ability to pay the seriousness of the violation and i don't recall him expressing specifically a distinction between the two types of violations but that overall he of he weighed under this court's decision and pound the aerosol the various factors that he was required to but i don't remember him distinguishing between