Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02753/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02753-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1365 Environmental Matters

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COALITION TO LIMIT UNIVERSITY

EXPANSION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

GEORGE BLUMENTHAL, Acting

Chancellor, University, Santa Cruz, in his

official capacity; and DEVCON

CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-02753 CRB

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO

DISMISS

This Clean Water Act (“CWA”) lawsuit challenges construction and related activities

at the campus of the University of California Santa Cruz. Now pending before the Court is

George Blumenthal’s motion to dismiss, properly joined by Devcon Construction, Inc. After

carefully considering the papers filed by the parties, the Court concludes that oral argument

is unnecessary, see Local Rule 7-1(b), and rules as follows:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the

complaint does not allege that defendants discharged pollution into waters with a “significant

nexus” to traditionally navigable waters is GRANTED with 30 days leave to amend. See

Northern California River Watch v. City of Healdsburg, 457 F.3d 1023, 1025 (9th Cir. 2006)

(citing Rapanos v. United States, 126 S.Ct. 2208, 2236-52 (2006) (Kennedy, J., concurring)).

Case 3:06-cv-02753-CRB Document 48 Filed 10/25/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2006\2753\orderredismiss.wpd 2

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the 60-day

Notice Letter does not allege that defendants discharged pollution into waters with a

“significant nexus” to traditionally navigable waters is DENIED. See Defendants’ Reply at

10 (arguing that the Notice is inadequate because it “fails to identify discharges to ‘waters of

the United States’ consistent with the criteria established in Rapanos”). Defendants do not

cite a single case that a requires a plaintiff to allege facts in its Notice Letter showing that a

court would have jurisdiction of the plaintiff’s CWA claims.

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on the complaint’s failure to allege ongoing

CWA violations is GRANTED with 30 days leave to amend as the complaint’s conclusory

allegations of ongoing violations are inadequate.

4. Defendant Blumenthal’s unopposed motion to dismiss the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth

Causes of action to the extent they allege violations at the Cogeneration Plant and the Fleet

Services Facility are GRANTED without leave to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 25, 2006

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-02753-CRB Document 48 Filed 10/25/06 Page 2 of 2