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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EL COMITE PARA EL BIENESTAR DE

EARLIMART, an unincorporated

association; ASSOCIATION OF

IRRITATE RESIDENTS, an NO. CIV. S-04-882 LKK/KJM

unincorporated association;

COMMUNITY AND CHILDREN’S

ADVOCATES AGAINST PESTICIDE 

POISONING, a California non-profit

corporation; WISHTOYO FOUNDATION,

a California non-profit corporation;

and VENTURA COASTKEEPER, a California

non-profit corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PAUL HELLIKER, in his official O R D E R

capacity as Director, Department

of Pesticide Regulation; TERRY

TAMMINEN, in his official capacity

as Secretary, California Environmental

Protection Agency; CATHERINE 

WITHERSPOON, in her official capacity

as Executive Officer, Air Resources

Board; ALAN LLOYD, in his official

capacity as Chairman, Air Resources

Board; and WILLIAM BURKE, JOSEPH CALHOUN,

DORENE D’ADAMO, MARK DESAULNIER, C. HUGH

FRIEDMAN, WILLIAM F. FRIEDMAN, MATTHEW

McKINNON, BARBARA PATRICK, BARBARA RIORDAN

and RON ROBERTS, in their official 

capacities as members, Air Resources Board,

Defendants.

 /

Case 2:04-cv-00882-LKK -KJM Document 120 Filed 04/26/06 Page 1 of 3
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 The court has chosen not to micro-manage the manner in

which defendants shall comply with this order, but only admonishes

defendants that it shall retain jurisdiction to ensure such

compliance.

2

On February 21, 2006, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for

summary judgment with respect to the first cause of action and

granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to the

second cause of action. The court ordered the parties to file

cross-briefs as to remedies.

After considering the briefs of the parties, the court hereby

ORDERS as follows:

1. Defendants shall propose, adopt and submit to EPA for

approval, and implement regulations no later than January 1, 2008,

to achieve the emission reduction goals as set forth in the May 9,

1995 memorandum from James Well to James Boyd (“Wells memo”).1 

2. On January 1, 2007, defendants shall file a status report

with the court as to its progress in meeting the reduction goals

described in ¶ 1. Within five (5) days of defendants’ status

report, plaintiffs shall respond to this progress report notifying

the court whether it is satisfied with defendants’ progress. The

court shall schedule a status conference if it deems it necessary

at that time.

3. In promulgating these regulations, defendants shall use

the 1991 inventory as a surrogate 1990 baseline from which

defendants shall measure the reduction goals in the Wells memo. 

////

////

Case 2:04-cv-00882-LKK -KJM Document 120 Filed 04/26/06 Page 2 of 3
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 In their remedies brief, defendants’ counsel states that

by proposing the remedy outlined above, they do not waive their

right to raise on appeal their objection that such relief is

inappropriate because it lacks a proper nexus to the court’s

decision. Defs.’ Br. at 4-5, n.4. Defendants explain that

ordering them to adopt, implement and submit regulations necessary

to reduce pesticide VOC emissions is inappropriate because there

is no nexus between that relief and the wrong that the court

identified. Id. Defendants’ contention is without merit.

The court explained in its February 21, 2006 order that for

a SIP to be valid, enforceable standards must be included -

otherwise, the SIP would be invalid. The court did not explicitly

hold that defendants failed to comply with the SIP by virtue of

their failure to adopt and implement regulations, but the record

undoubtedly reflects that defendants failed to meet the promises

it made in the SIP, including failing to use the correct PUR data.

By virtue of their failure to use the correct PUR data, defendants

consequently were unable to adopt proper “enforceable control

measures,” as they must, under the Clean Air Act. 

3

4. If plaintiffs’ counsel seeks attorney’s fees to ensure

compliance with this order or with any other order, plaintiffs’

counsel shall timely file a motion for attorney’s fees with this

court.

5. The court declares that defendants are in violation of the

Clean Air Act and the 1994 Ozone State Implementation Plan by

failing to utilize the 1990 PUR data as set forth in the 1994 SIP

and by failing to adopt “enforceable control measures” as required

by the Clean Air Act.2

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 25, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-00882-LKK -KJM Document 120 Filed 04/26/06 Page 3 of 3