Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01513/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01513-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE 

OF PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT 

WORKS, and CENTRAL VALLEY 

CLEAN WATER ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY; JARED 

BLUMENFELD, REGIONAL 

ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED STATES 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY, REGION IX; and DOES 1 to 

10,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-01513-MCE-DAD

ORDER

Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for an Order Striking 

New Arguments and Evidence Submitted for the First Time in EPA’s Reply to Plaintiffs’ 

Opposition to Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Granting 

Leave for Plaintiffs to File a Surreply (ECF No. 42). 

An Ex Parte Application is not the appropriate mechanism for bringing a Motion to 

Strike. Therefore, the Application for an Order Striking the New Arguments and 

Evidence is DENIED. In the interest of fairness and because this request is unopposed 

Case 2:14-cv-01513-MCE-DB Document 44 Filed 02/24/15 Page 1 of 2
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

2

(ECF No. 43), Plaintiffs’ Application for an Order Granting Leave for Plaintiffs to File a 

Surreply is nonetheless GRANTED.1 No later than two days following the date this order 

is electronically filed, Plaintiffs are directed to file their Surreply. Any response to the 

Surreply by Defendant EPA must be filed by no later than three (3) days following the 

filing of the Surreply. 

The March 5, 2015 hearing on the Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF 

Nos. 25, 30) and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (ECF No. 36) is VACATED and 

CONTINUED to Thursday, March 19, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 7. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 23, 2015

 1 The Court does not look favorably on ex parte applications that could have been avoided by 

stipulation. Counsel are all admonished that any future ex parte applications will be rejected unless the 

parties specifically explain: (1) the steps they took to meet and confer; and (2) why no stipulation could be 

reached. 

Case 2:14-cv-01513-MCE-DB Document 44 Filed 02/24/15 Page 2 of 2