Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Corona Clay Company v. Inland Empire Waterkeeper, a Project of Orange County Coastkeeper, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 20-55420, 20-55678 · judgment September 20, 2021
Before the decision, about 2× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a Ninth Circuit decision below, a circuit split argued in the petition, and a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition).
Questions presented
-
Whether, in a private citizen suit brought under 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a) of the Clean Water Act (the “CWA”), a plaintiff can establish Article III standing without proving that there is any actual or threatened harm to any jurisdictional water of the United States.
-
Whether Article III standing in a private citizen suit under 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a) may be premised solely on the reporting and monitoring provisions in the CWA stemming from “informational injury.”
-
Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a) removes a trial court’s discretion, after the evidence phase of trial, to allow or disallow the presentation of new evidence to the jury.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Eric J. Fromme
Pacheco & Neach, P.C.
For respondent
Jason Robert Flanders
Aqua Terra Aeris Law Group
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- Apr 04 2022Petition DENIED.
- Mar 16 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/1/2022.
- Mar 10 2022Reply of petitioner Corona Clay Company filed.
- Feb 24 2022Brief of Inland Empire Waterkeeper, a Project of Orange County Coastkeeper, et al. in opposition not accepted for filing.(Corrected version submitted) (March 08, 2022)
- Feb 24 2022Brief of respondents Inland Empire Waterkeeper, a Project of Orange County Coastkeeper, et al. in opposition (3/7/2022) filed.
- Jan 21 2022Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 25, 2022)