Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01648/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01648-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:7604 Clear Air Act (Emission Standards)

---

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

ASSOCIATION OF IRRITATED

RESIDENTS, an unincorporated

association,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR

POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT,

FOSTER FARMS, LLC, and FOSTER

POULTRY FARMS, INC.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:06-cv-1648 OWW DLB

AMENDED SCHEDULING

CONFERENCE ORDER 

Discovery Cut-Off: 8/18/08

Non-Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline: 8/29/08

Dispositive Motion Filing

Deadline: 9/15/08

Settlement Conference Date:

8/28/08 10:00 Ctrm. 9

Pre-Trial Conference

Date: 11/24/08 11:00 Ctrm.

3

Trial Date: 1/6/09 9:00

Ctrm. 3 (JT-10 days)

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

March 21, 2007.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment by Avinash Kar,

Esq., and Brent J. Newell, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

Philip M. Jay, Esq., and Catherine M. Redmond, Esq.,

appeared on behalf of Defendant San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Case 1:06-cv-01648-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/02/07 Page 1 of 13
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

Pollution Control District. 

Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP, by Elizabeth M. Weaver,

Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendants Foster Farms, LLC, and

Foster Poultry Farms, Inc.

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

1. This case is a citizen suit by the Association of

Irritated Residents (“AIR”) against Foster Farms, LLC, and Foster

Poultry Farms, Inc. (collectively “Foster Farms”) and the San

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

(“District”). AIR alleges that, in violation of the federal

Clean Air Act and the federally approved State Implementation

Plan (“SIP”), the District is allowing Foster Farms to expand its

chicken factory operations at El Dorado Ranch and Davis Ranch

without purchasing required air pollution “offsets” to mitigate

the impact of its air pollution emissions on the San Joaquin

Valley’s already unhealthy air. AIR also alleges that the

District failed to comply with Best Available Control Technology

(“BACT”) requirements in the SIP.

2. The District contends that the offsets provision of its

rule does not apply to minor agricultural sources such as the

Foster Farms facilities at issue in this case. The District

further contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction to address

AIR’s argument regarding BACT. Foster Farms also contends that

emission reduction credits (or offsets) were not required prior

to the issuance of permits by the District to the Foster Farms

chicken ranch operations at issue in this case.

3. Plaintiff AIR’s Complaint contains two causes of action

that allege that Foster Farms began actual construction of the

Case 1:06-cv-01648-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/02/07 Page 2 of 13
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

3

chicken facility without complying with pollution controls

mandated in District Rule 2201, which is part of California’s SIP

and thus federally enforceable. The first cause of action

alleges that the District and Foster Farms violated Rule 2201's

“offset” requirement. Rule 2201 requires that a stationary

source undergoing modifications purchase offsets to mitigate its

emissions of air pollutants if emissions from the facility exceed

set thresholds for each pollutant. AIR alleges that the District

failed to require and Foster Farms failed to purchase offsets for

volatile organic compounds (“VOC”) emissions at El Dorado Ranch

and Davis Ranch, which have Potentials to Emit VOC exceeding the

threshold of ten tons per year. AIR also alleges that the

District failed to require and Foster Farms failed to purchase

offsets for emissions of particulate matter with an aerodynamic

diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (“PM10") at El Dorado

Ranch, which has a Potential to Emit PM 10 exceeding the

threshold of 14.6 tons per year. El Dorado Ranch has a Potential

to Emit 20.98 tons of VOC per year and 16.78 tons of PM10 per

year. Davis Ranch has a Potential to Emit 18.05 tons of VOC per

year.

4. The District contends that the legislative history

behind its Rule 2201 clearly demonstrates that the offsets

provisions of the Rule was intended to apply to minor

agricultural sources such as the Foster Farms facilities at issue

here. In addition, the District contends that the District only

has the regulatory authority granted to it by the State of

California and that current state law prohibits the District from

requiring offsets for minor agricultural sources unless such

Case 1:06-cv-01648-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/02/07 Page 3 of 13
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

4

sources can also generate offsets, which the District claims they

currently cannot do. Foster Farms agrees with the District’s

contentions and agrees that Rule 2201 was correctly construed by

the District in connection with the District’s issuance of

permits to Foster Farms for its chicken ranch operations.

5. AIR’s second cause of action alleges the District

violated the BACT requirement in Rule 2201. Rule 2201 requires a

new or modified stationary source of air pollution or an

emissions unit to install BACT when emissions of VOC or PM 10

exceed 2 pounds per day. AIR alleges that each of the

mechanically ventilated broiler houses at El Dorado Ranch and

Davis Ranch is an emissions unit with a potential to emit

exceeding the BACT threshold of two pounds a day of VOC. AIR

alleges that the District improperly relied on its current costeffectiveness threshold to eliminate effective technologies in

making BACT determinations for El Dorado Ranch and Davis Ranch. 

The District’s current threshold has been determined to be

inadequate by the California Air Resources Board. The costeffectiveness threshold at comparable air districts is three to

four times greater than that used by the District.

6. The District contends that the cost-effectiveness

threshold is purely discretionary with its legislative body and

is not properly before this Court. Further, the District states

that even under the higher thresholds employed by some air

districts, the control technology advocated by AIR is not costeffective. Although this claim was not filed against Foster

Farms, Foster Farms contends that the control technologies

required by the District for the Foster Farms chicken ranch

Case 1:06-cv-01648-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/02/07 Page 4 of 13
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

5

projects were appropriate and that the District properly

evaluated the cost-effectiveness of alternative technologies in

making its BACT determination for the Foster Farms projects.

7. Foster Farms and the District both assert the following

affirmative defenses:

a. AIR has failed to join the State of California as

a necessary party because the District has only the regulatory

authority granted to it by the State of California and thus has

no authority to require Foster Farms to purchase offsets;

b. The Complaint and all causes of action are or will

be moot as a result of amendments to Rule 2020 and 2201 adopted

in September 2006 and submitted to the California Air Resources

Board and EPA for approval;

c. AIR has failed to exhaust state law remedies; and 

d. AIR fails to state a claim upon which relief can

be granted.

8. In addition, Foster Farms asserts that AIR has failed

to exhaust administrative remedies, that AIR lacks standing to

assert the claims in the Complaint, and that any violations of

law that occurred were committed by individuals and entities

other than Foster Farms. The District separately asserts that

the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the BACT

cost-effective threshold is a purely discretionary policy set by

the legislative body of the District, is not included in a

federally approved rule, and thus is not federally enforceable. 

The District also asserts that AIR has waived all its causes of

action and that the causes of action are barred by the applicable

statute of limitations. Defendant Foster Poultry Farms asserts

Case 1:06-cv-01648-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/02/07 Page 5 of 13
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

6

that it is not a proper party to this litigation and has

undertaken no actions that give rise to any claim against it.

9. Association of Irrigated Residents seeks declaratory

relief, civil penalties of $32,500 per day against Foster Farms

and against the District since Foster Farms began actual

construction on or about May 30, 2006, a preliminary and

permanent injunction prohibiting Foster Farms’ operation of the

permitted facilities without the required pollution controls, an

order requiring Foster Farms to remedy the environmental harm

caused by the violation of the Clean Air Act, and attorneys’ fees

and costs of litigation.

10. Foster Farms and the District both seek dismissal of

the complaint, attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit.

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. At present, none of the parties contemplate amendments

to the pleadings.

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. The District and Foster Farms do not dispute that

the Davis Ranch and El Dorado facilities emit VOC and PM10.

2. The San Joaquin Valley has an air pollution

problem.

3. A reaction between VOC and oxides of nitrogen forms

ozone and ozone and PM10 are associated with health effects.

4. The Davis Ranch and El Dorado Ranch are located in

Fresno County, California and the Eastern District of California

and that Fresno County is included in the San Joaquin Valley Air

Case 1:06-cv-01648-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/02/07 Page 6 of 13
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

7

Basin which EPA has designated a serious non-attainment area for

the eight hour ozone national ambient air quality standards.

5. The Plaintiffs sent 60 day notices of intent to

sue to the District on August 8, 2006, to Foster Farms, LLC and

Foster Poultry Farms, Inc.

6. The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution

Control District was sent a 60 day notice of intent to sue on

August 8, 2006. 

B. Contested Facts.

1. All remaining facts are contested.

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42

U.S.C. § 7604(a). The District questions whether the relief

sought by Plaintiff is in whole or in part barred by failure to

exhaust remedies and other grounds.

2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

3. The parties agree that the EPA has approved Rule

2201 as part of the SIP. 

B. Contested. 

1. All other legal issues remain in dispute.

2. Foster Farms Defendants further challenge

Plaintiffs’ standing to bring this suit.

VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

1. The parties have not consented to transfer the 

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.

VIII. Corporate Identification Statement.

1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

Case 1:06-cv-01648-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/02/07 Page 7 of 13
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

8

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

information. 

IX. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.

1. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery on

or before August 15, 2008.

2. Plaintiffs are directed to disclose all expert

witnesses, in writing, on or before May 1, 2008. Defendants are

directed to disclose all expert witnesses, in writing, on or

before June 2, 2008. The parties will comply with the provisions

of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) regarding their expert

designations. Local Rule 16-240(a) notwithstanding, the written

designation of experts shall be made pursuant to F. R. Civ. P.

Rule 26(a)(2), (A) and (B) and shall include all information

required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in compliance

with this order may result in the Court excluding the testimony

or other evidence offered through such experts that are not

disclosed pursuant to this order.

3. The provisions of F. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) shall 

apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. 

Experts may be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and

opinions included in the designation. Failure to comply will

result in the imposition of sanctions. 

X. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule.

1. All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any

Case 1:06-cv-01648-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/02/07 Page 8 of 13
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

9

discovery motions, will be filed on or before August 29, 2008,

and heard on October 3, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate

Judge Dennis L. Beck in Courtroom 9. 

2. In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate

Judge may grant applications for an order shortening time

pursuant to Local Rule 142(d). However, if counsel does not

obtain an order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply

with Local Rule 251. 

3. All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions are to be

filed no later than September 15, 2008, and will be heard on

October 20, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Oliver W.

Wanger, United States District Judge, in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor. 

In scheduling such motions, counsel shall comply with Local Rule

230. 

XI. Pre-Trial Conference Date.

1. November 24, 2008, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 7th

Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States

District Judge. 

2. The parties are ordered to file a Joint PreTrial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2). 

3. Counsel's attention is directed to Rules 281 

and 282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District

of California, as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for

the pre-trial conference. The Court will insist upon strict

compliance with those rules.

XII. Trial Date.

1. January 6, 2009, at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom

3, 7th Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

Case 1:06-cv-01648-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/02/07 Page 9 of 13
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

10

States District Judge. 

2. Plaintiffs have requested jury trial. Defendants

dispute whether they have a right to jury trial. This issue

shall be addressed by motion. The District and Foster Farms also

contend that the remedies sought by Plaintiff are issues for

judicial determination only under 42 U.S.C. §§ 7604(d), (g). 

Plaintiff contends that the right to jury trial exists based on

the Court’s determination of penalties under 42 U.S.C.

§ 7413(e)(1), which involves factual issues regarding the level

of emissions from the two Foster Farms facilities. 

3. Counsels' Estimate Of Trial Time:

a. 10 days.

4. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules

of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285. 

XIII. Settlement Conference.

1. A Settlement Conference is scheduled for August 28,

2008, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9 before the Honorable Denis L.

Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. 

2. Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the

Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the

Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons

having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any

terms at the conference. 

3. Permission for a party [not attorney] to attend

by telephone may be granted upon request, by letter, with a copy

to the other parties, if the party [not attorney] lives and works

outside the Eastern District of California, and attendance in

person would constitute a hardship. If telephone attendance is

Case 1:06-cv-01648-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/02/07 Page 10 of 13
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

11

allowed, the party must be immediately available throughout the

conference until excused regardless of time zone differences. 

Any other special arrangements desired in cases where settlement

authority rests with a governing body, shall also be proposed in

advance by letter copied to all other parties. 

4. Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. 

At least five (5) days prior to the Settlement Conference the

parties shall submit, directly to the Magistrate Judge's

chambers, a confidential settlement conference statement. The

statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor

served on any other party. Each statement shall be clearly

marked "confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement

Conference indicated prominently thereon. Counsel are urged to

request the return of their statements if settlement is not

achieved and if such a request is not made the Court will dispose

of the statement.

5. The Confidential Settlement Conference

Statement shall include the following: 

a. A brief statement of the facts of the 

case.

b. A brief statement of the claims and 

defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims

are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood

of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of

the major issues in dispute.

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be

expended for further discovery, pre-trial and trial.

Case 1:06-cv-01648-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/02/07 Page 11 of 13
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

12

e. The relief sought.

f. The parties' position on settlement,

including present demands and offers and a history of past

settlement discussions, offers and demands. 

XIV. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master, 

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 

1. None. 

XV. Related Matters Pending.

1. There are no related matters.

XVI. Compliance With Federal Procedure.

1. The Court requires compliance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the

Eastern District of California. To aid the court in the

efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed

to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District

of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto.

XVII. Effect Of This Order.

1. The foregoing order represents the best

estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable

to bring this case to resolution. The trial date reserved is

specifically reserved for this case. If the parties determine at

any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met,

counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact

so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by

subsequent scheduling conference. 

2. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained

herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by

Case 1:06-cv-01648-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/02/07 Page 12 of 13
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

13

affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached

exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief

requested. 

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in

the imposition of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01648-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 04/02/07 Page 13 of 13