Preemption  

Center for Biological Diversity v. NHTSA, No. 06-71891 (9th Cir. filed Apr. 12, 2006).  

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration released new fuel efficiency standards which analyzed the effect of state regulation of greenhouse gases emitted from automobiles. The document stated that manufacturers would have to increase fuel efficiency to meet the standards of such state regulation. Since states are not permitted to enforce their own fuel efficiency standards, the report implies that state regulation of greenhouse gases emitted from automobiles would be preempted. Petitioners have challenged this report in the Ninth Circuit Court with reasoning which closely resembles that in Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep.

Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep v. Witherspoon, No. CV-04-6663 (E.D. Cal. 2006).

Automobile manufacturers and dealers brought suit before the District Court for the Eastern District of California against the California Air Resources Control Board, arguing that a state law which regulates greenhouse gases emitted from automobiles is preempted by the fuel efficiency standards promulgated by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. The manufacturers and dealers argue that California’s regulation can only be met by making cars more fuel efficient, setting a de facto standard and interfering with federal authority to regulate fuel economy. Alternatively, they argue that California’s attempt to regulate interferes with federal executive power to negotiate internationally concerning global warming and greenhouse gas emissions. California moved for a judgment on the pleadings, but the Court found that the manufacturers had stated a sufficient claim under both doctrines. The case was set to go to trial in January 2007 in the District Court for the Eastern District of California, but Judge Ishii has issued a stay pending the resolution of Mass v. EPA.

• California Cars Plaintiff brief July 20, 2007
• California Cars govt opening brief July 20, 2007
• Judge Ishii issues stay on January 16, 2007 pending the outcome of Mass v. EPA.
• Judge Ishii cancels hearings on motions for summary judgment - November 27, 2006
• Defendant and defendant-intervenors reply memorandum in support of their motion for summary judgment - November 17, 2006
• Defendant and defendant-intervenors response to plaintiff-intervenor's asserted additional material facts - November 17, 2006
• Plaintiff's opposition memo to Defendant motion for summary judgment on “Ripeness” - November 13, 2006
• Plaintiff's Points and Authorities memo on motion for summary judgment on “Ripeness” - November 13, 2006
• Alliance of International Automobile Manufacturers files a motion for summary judgment without proceeding to trial - November 8, 2006
• Defendant and defendant-intervenors file motion for summary judgment on “Ripeness” - October 27, 2006
• Judge Ishii throws out two car company claims, rules to proceed to trial on three others - September 25, 2006
• Defendant and defendant-interveners’ reply memorandum of points and authorities in support of their motion for judgment on the pleadings - September 15, 2006
• Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to motion for judgment on the pleadings - September 15, 2006
• Memorandum of points and authorities of plaintiff intervener, Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, in opposition to defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. – September 15, 2006
• Defendant and defendant-interveners’ memorandum of points and authorities in support of their motion for judgment on the pleadings - September 15, 2006
• Attorney General Bill Lockyer files a motion to dismiss the automakers’ lawsuit on grounds California has special authority to set its own motor vehicle standards for air pollution, including emissions that cause global warming - June 1, 2006
• Judge Robert Coyle retires. The case is reassigned to Judge Anthony Ishii - June 1, 2006
• Motion for Reconsideration of Certification for Appeal…Venue - November 28, 2005
• Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Reconsideration…Decision of October 20, 2005… - November 28, 2005
• Defendant Intervenors’ Initial Disclosures - November 21, 2005
• Plaintiff’s Reply Memo in Support of Motion for Reconsideration or To Supplement Decision of October 20, 2005 - November, 2005
• ARB’s Answer to Complaint in Intervention Filed by AIAM - November 15, 2005
• ARB Answer to 1st Amended Complaint for Declaratory & Injunctive Relief - November 15, 2005
• Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration; Declaration of Counsel - November 11, 2005
• Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Court Opinion on Motion to Change Venue - October 23, 2005
• Memorandum of Points and Authorities on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration - October 23, 2005
• Opinion on Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Change Venue - October 20, 2005
• Opinion on Sierra Club et al. Motion to Intervene - October 20, 2005
• Opinion on AIAM Motion to Intervene - October 20, 2005
• Scheduling Conference Order - September 20, 2005
• Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief on Motion to Dismiss - August 1, 2005
• Defendant’s Supplemental Brief on Motion to Dismiss - August 1, 2005
• Order Directing Parties to File Supplemental Briefs on Motion to Dismiss - July 26, 2005
• ARB Motion to Dismiss - June 13, 2005
• ARB Motion to Dismiss Appendix - June 13, 2005
• Plaintiff’s Response to ARB Motion to Dismiss - June 13, 2005
• AIAM Response to ARB’s Motion to Dismiss, Part 1 - June 13, 2005
• AIAM Response to ARB’s Motion to Dismiss, Part 2 - June 13, 2005
• Bluewater et. al. response to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint - Date To Be Notified
• Opposition to AIAM Motion to Intervene - June 13, 2005
• Opposition to Environmentalists Motion to Intervene - June 13, 2005
• AIAM Reply to ARB Opposition to Motion to Intervene - June 13, 2005
• Order Postponing Hearing - June 9, 2005
• ARB Staff Member Kasper Declaration in Support of Motion to Dismiss - May 27, 2005
• ARB Staff Member Mahdavi Declaration in Support of Motion to Dismiss - May 27, 2005
• ARB Reply Memorandum of Points & Authorities Support of Motion to Dismiss - March 27, 2005
• Motion to Intervene, Sierra Club, NRDC, ED - March 7, 2005
• Motion to Intervene, Bluewater et. al. - Date To Be Notified
• Motion to Intervene, AIAM - March 7, 2005
• ARB Points & Authorities on Motion to Dismiss - March 7, 2005
• Amended Complaint, Part 1 - February 16, 2005
• Amended Complaint, Part 2 - February 16, 2005
• Original Complaint Filed by AAM & Dealers in U.S. District Court, Fresno - December 7, 2004

 

Green Mountain Chrysler v. Torti, No. 2:05-CV-302 (D. Vt. filed Nov. 18, 2005), sub nom. Green Mountain Chrysler v. Dalmasse, No. 2:05-CV-302 (D.Vt. Nov. 30, 2006).

Vermont enacted regulations similar to those of California establishing greenhouse gas emission standards. The arguments put forth by both sides largely duplicate the arguments presented in Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep. The state’s motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and ripeness was dismissed in November 2006. A decision on this case is still pending. A similar suit was also filed the same day, Ass’n of Int’l Auto. Mfrs. v. Torti, No. 2:04-CV-304 (D.Vt. filed Nov. 18, 2005), and is consolidated within the suit.

• Complaint
• Plaintiff International Automobile Manufacturers Memorandum concerning Massachusetts v. EPA
• Plaintiff Green Mountain Chrysler Plymouth Dodge Jeep Memorandum regarding Massachusetts v. EPA
• Judge Sessions Order on Trade Secrets
• D’s memo in support of motion to stay cases
• D’s answer to complaint filed by P
• D’s reply to P’s memo in opposition of motion to stay cases
• Memo in opposition to motion to stay cases
• Memo in support of motion of CLF, Sierra, Env Def, etc.
• Plaintiff Ass'n of Int'l Automobile Manf. Post-Trial Brief
• Plaintiff Alliance of Auto Manf. et al Post-Trial Memo
• Defendants Post-Trial (part 1)
• Defendants Post-Trial (part 2)
• Defendants Post-Trial (part 3)

 

Lincoln Dodge, Inc. v. Sullivan, No. 1:06-CV-0070 (D.R.I. filed Feb. 13, 2006)

In the third of three cases similar to Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep, automobile dealers and manufacturers are challenging California-style CO2 regulations enacted in Rhode Island in the District Court for the District of Rhode Island. Decision is pending. Ass’n of Int’l Auto. Mfrs. v. Sullivan, No. 1:06-CV-00069 (D.R.I. filed Feb. 13, 2006) is also consolidated within the suit.

• Complaint
• Memorandum in Support of Motion of CLF, Sierra Club, NRDC, and Environmental Defense to Intervene as Party Defendants