THE PINE CREEK VALLEY WATERSHED ASSOC. et al v. THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY et al, No. 5:2014cv01478 - Document 57 (E.D. Pa. 2015)

Court Description: OPINION/ORDER THAT THE MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOC. NOS. 45-46, 50) ARE DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDWARD G. SMITH ON 9/28/15. 9/28/15 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (ky, )

Download PDF
THE PINE CREEK VALLEY WATERSHED ASSOC. et al v. THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONM...PROTECTION AGENCY et al Doc. 57 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA THE PINE CREEK VALLEY WATERSHED ASSOC., RAYMOND PROFFITT FOUNDATION, THE DELAWARE RIVERKEEPER NETWORK, and THE DELAWARE RIVERKEEPER C/O JOHN WILMER, ESQ., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, GINA MCCARTHY, Administrator, and SHAWN GAVIN, Region III Administrator, Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-1478 ORDER AND NOW, this 28th day of September, 2015, after considering the motions for reconsideration filed by the plaintiffs, the Pine Creek Valley Watershed Assoc. and Raymond Proffitt Foundation (Doc. Nos. 45-46), the motion for reconsideration filed by the plaintiffs, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network and the Delaware Riverkeeper (Doc. No. 50), the response in opposition to the motions filed by the defendants (Doc. No. 51), the response in opposition to the motions filed by the intervenors (Doc. No. 52), the reply in support of their motions filed by the plaintiffs, the Pine Creek Valley Watershed Assoc. and Raymond Proffitt Foundation (Doc. No. 53), and the reply in support of their motion filed by the plaintiffs, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network and the Delaware Riverkeeper (Doc. No. 54); and after oral argument held before the undersigned on May 27, 2015; accordingly, and for the reasons expressed in the accompanying Dockets.Justia.com memorandum opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that the motions for reconsideration (Doc. Nos. 45-46, 50) are DENIED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Edward G. Smith EDWARD G. SMITH, J. 2

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.