Opinion
24-cv-385-RSH-SBC
10-02-2024
COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION, Plaintiff, v. AZTEC PERLITE COMPANY, INC., Defendant.
ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL BRIEFING
HON. ROBERT S. HUIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Plaintiff Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation's motion for default judgment. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff is a non-profit corporation established “to advocate for the protection and enhancement of coastal natural resources and the quality of life for coastal residents.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 18. On February 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed its Complaint in this action against Defendant Aztec Perlite Company, Inc. under the citizen enforcement provision of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”). Id. at ¶1. The Complaint alleges that Defendant operates a perlite manufacturing facility which discharges pollutant-contaminated storm water in violation of the CWA and California's “General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities” (“General Permit”). On July 30, 2024, default was entered against Defendant and Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for default judgment. ECF Nos. 16, 18.
Standing is an “‘indispensable part'” of a plaintiff's case and “must be supported at each stage of litigation in the same manner as any other essential element of the case.” Cent. Delta Water Agency v. United States, 306 F.3d 938, 947 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992)). An organization can bring suit in federal court under two theories of standing: by suing on its own behalf, or on behalf of its members. See Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. San Jose Unified Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 82 F.4th 664, 723 (9th Cir. 2023). Based on the Complaint, Plaintiff appears to assert standing under the second theory. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 18-20.
“An organization has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members when: ‘(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purposes; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.'” Ecological Rights Found. v. Pac. Lumber Co., 230 F.3d 1141, 1147 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Com'n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977)). Individual members of the organization “have standing in their own right under Article III if ‘they have suffered an injury in fact that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical, . . . the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and . . . it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.'” Id. (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000)).
Here, Plaintiff does not sufficiently explain how it has standing to bring this suit on behalf of its members. Specifically, Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence- particularly in the form of declarations-identifying the members on which it relies on for standing or how these members have suffered an injury in fact. See Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 183 (injury in fact adequately documented by affidavits and testimony presented by environmental organization's members); Ecological Rights, 230 F.3d at 1150 (same); see also Fish Nw. v. Rumsey, No. 22-35641, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 15274, at *12-13 (9th Cir. June 20, 2023) (same).
For these reasons, the Court DIRECTS Plaintiff to submit supplemental briefing addressing the above issue. Plaintiff's brief should be no more than five pages in length (excluding attachments) and be filed on or before October 11, 2024 .
IT IS SO ORDERED.