Inland Empire Waterkeeper et al v. Corona Clay Company, No. 8:2018cv00333 - Document 191 (C.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT by Judge David O. Carter. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that judgment is entered in Plaintiffs favor on the First and Fifth Causes of Action. Defendant shall pay civil penalties for violations of the Clean Water Act in the sum of $3,700,000 by July 1, 2020. SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (twdb)

Download PDF
Inland Empire Waterkeeper et al v. Corona Clay Company Doc. 191 1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SOUTHERN DIVISION 11 12 13 14 15 Case No. 8:18-cv-00333-DOC-DFM INLAND EMPIRE WATERKEEPER et al., Plaintiffs, 16 17 FINAL JUDGMENT v. 18 19 20 CORONA CLAY COMPANY, Defendant. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1- Dockets.Justia.com 1 In their First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs Inland Empire Waterkeeper and Orange 2 County Coastkeeper (“Plaintiffs”) brought seven causes of action against Defendant Corona 3 Clay Company (“Defendant”), for violations of the 2015 General Industrial Storm Water Permit 4 (the “Permit”). 5 6 7 8 9 On June 10, 2019, the Court entered an order granting partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ First and Fifth Causes of Action. By stipulation of the parties, Plaintiffs’ Third and Fourth Causes of Action were dismissed with prejudice before trial. The remaining claims—Plaintiffs’ Second, Sixth, and Seventh Causes of Action—were 10 tried before a jury from October 21 through October 25, 2019. On October 25, 2019, the jury 11 rendered a verdict in favor of Defendant on the Second, Sixth, and Seventh Causes of Action. 12 13 14 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that judgment is entered in Plaintiffs’ favor on the First and Fifth Causes of Action. Accordingly, the Court orders that: (1) Defendant is liable for 664 daily violations (September 4, 2017 through June 30, 15 2019) of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, that is, section X.C.1, 16 subsections b and c, of the Permit; 17 (2) Defendant is liable for 1688 daily violations (March 2, 2015 through October 15, 18 2019) of the Permit’s Section V limitations on technology-based effluents; 19 (3) Defendant shall implement structural storm water Best Management Practices 20 sufficient to retain the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event, including a factor of 21 safety, from areas subject to the Storm Water Permit no later than December 1, 2020. 22 All retention basins should be designed and certified by a California licensed 23 professional engineer, and comply with the requirements of section X.H.6 of the 24 Permit; 25 (4) Defendant shall update and amend its Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan to 26 comply with section X.C.1, subsections b and c, of the Permit, no later than July 1, 27 2020; and 28 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (5) Defendant shall pay civil penalties for violations of the Clean Water Act in the sum of $3,700,000 by July 1, 2020. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Third and Fourth Causes of Action are dismissed with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of Defendant on the Second, Sixth, and Seventh Causes of Action. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs are the prevailing party as to the First and 8 Fifth Causes of Action, and that Defendant is the prevailing party as to the Second, Sixth, and 9 Seventh Causes of Action. As each party has prevailed on some claims and not others, the 10 parties shall bear their own fees and costs in this matter. 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED AND ENTERED. JUDGMENT IS DEEMED ENTERED AS OF THE DATE BELOW. 14 15 DATED: April 6, 2020 16 DAVID O. CARTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.