Sunday, November 24, 2013

American Lung Ass’n v. Reilly case brief

American Lung Ass’n v. Reilly case brief summary
962 F.2d 258 (2d Cir. 1992)


CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant utility companies sought review of an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The order denied their motion to intervene as defendants in a citizen action brought under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 7401 et seq., to compel appellee, Environmental Protection Agency, to review and revise the national-ambient-air-quality-standards for ozone.

CASE FACTS
Appellant utility companies filed a motion to intervene as defendants in a citizen action brought under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 7401 et seq., against appellee Environmental Protection Agency. The district court denied appellants' motion.

DISCUSSION

  • The court affirmed. 
  • The court held that the district court acted within its discretion, and that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction of the action.
  • The court found that appellants' interest in the action's subject matter was based on a "double contingency" of events and, therefore, was too remote. 
  • The court found that because appellants could participate in any national-ambient-air-quality-standards (NAAQS) rulemaking order by the district court, a judgment in favor of the citizens would not impair appellants' ability to challenge any defect of subsequent rulemaking. 
  • The court held that appellants did not demonstrate an interest in the rulemaking schedule that was not adequately represented by appellee. 
  • The court found that appellee's failure to revise the NAAQS's after five years was not an "agency action unreasonably delayed" that conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the district court for the District of Columbia.

CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the district court's order that denied appellant utility companies' motion to intervene in a citizen action to compel appellee Environmental Protection Agency to review and revise the national-ambient-air-quality-standards for ozone. The court held that appellants' interest in the action's subject matter was too remote to permit intervention.

Recommended Supplements for Civil Procedure

No comments:

Post a Comment

Search Thousands of Case Briefs and Articles.