Inland Empire Waterkeeper, et al. v. Corona Clay Company

Los Angeles, California, environmental lawyers represented the Plaintiff who used the Defendant claiming it violating the Clean Water Act.

Plaintiffs sued defendant Corona Clay Co. for violating certain stormwater-permit requirements related to its clay-recycling activities conducted near Temescal Creek. Corona defended by arguing that it had not discharged any pollutants into the creek. The case went to trial, with a verdict in favor of Corona. On appeal, this court reversed for a new trial in part because in an intervening decision the Supreme Court had held that indirect discharges are covered by the Clean Water Act if they are the “functional equivalent” of a direct discharge. On remand, the district court conducted a second trial, at which plaintiffs prevailed. Not long after, the
Supreme Court decided Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. 651 (2023), which narrowed what constitutes “water of the United States” under the Act.

The district court denied Corona’s alternative motions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59.

Reversed.