Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06663/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06663-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Contitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CENTRAL VALLEY CHRYSLER- )

JEEP, INC., et al., )

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

CATHERINE WITHERSPOON, )

et al., )

)

)

Defendants. )

)

)

No. CV-F-04-6663 AWI/LJO(New DC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO FILE POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

AMICI CURIAE (Doc. 283) AND

MODIFYING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND

ORAL ARGUMENT RE DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE

PLEADINGS

The motion filed by the States of New York, Connecticut,

Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont,

Washington, and the City of New York (hereinafter referred to as

Amici) to file a brief amicus curiae in support of the motion for

judgment on the pleadings filed by defendant and defendantintervenors is granted. 

In requesting leave to file an amicus brief in support of

the motion for judgment on the pleadings, Amici note that the

Case 1:04-cv-06663-AWI-GSA Document 247 Filed 06/23/06 Page 1 of 4
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

2

Clean Air Act prohibits states other than California from

adopting their own motor vehicle emission standards. 42 U.S.C. §

7543. However, the Clean Air Act does allow states other than

California to adopt California’s new motor vehicle emission

standards. 42 U.S.C. § 7507. Amici represent that each of the

states have adopted California’s new motor vehicle emission

standards, including those standards involving greenhouse gas

emissions. In addition, Amici contend, although defendants’

brief in support of the motion for judgment on the pleadings

discuss that California Health and Safety Code § 43018.5 and its

implementing regulations were enacted in response to the

consequences of global warming, Amici assert that defendants’

discussion is “both brief and limited to the effects of global

warming on California”. Amici argue that because they 

will be particularly seriously affected by

the consequences of global warming, and are

knowledgeable about those effects, they will

be able to provide more detailed and

comprehensive information about global

warming and its effects than was provided by

defendants, thereby ensuring that the Court

has a ‘full and plenary’ discussion of this

vitally important public issue.

Whether to allow an amicus brief is within the discretion of

the court which may grant or deny leave as it deems the proffered

information timely, useful or, otherwise. Community Ass’n for

Restor. v. DeRutter Bros. Dairy, 54 F.Supp.2d 974, 975

(E.D.Wash.1999). Historically, an amicus curiae is not a party

to litigation but is an impartial individual or entity that

advises the court in order that justice may be done, rather than

Case 1:04-cv-06663-AWI-GSA Document 247 Filed 06/23/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

advocating a point of view so that the case may be won by one

party or another. Id. “An amicus brief normally should be

allowed when a party is not represented competently or is not

represented at all, when an amicus has an interest in some other

case that may be affected by the decision in the present case, or

when the amicus has unique information or perspective that can

help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties

are able to provide ... Otherwise, leave to file an amicus curiae

brief should be denied.” Id.

Given the interest of the Amici in the ultimate resolution

of this action and the importance and complexity of this

litigation, the court concludes that allowing the filing of an

amicus brief supporting the motion for judgment on the pleadings

is necessary to ensure that the court has a full and plenary

discussion of the issues raised by this litigation. 

However, because allowing the filing of this amicus brief

will affect the briefing schedule for the motion for judgment on

the pleadings stipulated to by the parties in Order filed on

April 4, 2006 and the court’s ability to prepare for the motion,

the court modifies the briefing schedule as follows: Plaintiffs

and plaintiff-intervenor’s opposition(s) shall be filed no later

July 24, 2006; Defendant, defendant-intervenors, and amici’s

reply(s) shall be filed no later than August 17, 2006. Oral

argument regarding the motion for judgment on the pleadings on

Friday, September 15, 2006 at 9:00 a.m.

///

Case 1:04-cv-06663-AWI-GSA Document 247 Filed 06/23/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

ACCORDINGLY:

1. The motion filed by the States of New York, Connecticut,

Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont,

Washington, and the City of New York to file a brief amicus

curiae in support of the motion for judgment on the pleadings

filed by defendant and defendant-intervenors is granted and that

the brief amicus curiae attached to the motion is accepted for

filing by the court.

2. Plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenor’s opposition(s) to

the motion for judgment on the pleadings shall be filed no later

July 24, 2006. Defendant, defendant-intervenors, and amici’s

reply(s) shall be filed no later than August 17, 2006. Oral

argument regarding the motion for judgment on the pleadings on

Friday, September 15, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06663-AWI-GSA Document 247 Filed 06/23/06 Page 4 of 4