San Diego Coastkeeper et al v. West Coast Iron

1
25-cv-00879-JO-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN DIEGO COASTKEEPER, a non-
profit corporation; COASTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS
FOUNDATION, a non-profit corporation,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WEST COAST IRON, a California
Corporation,
Defendant.
Case No.: 25-cv-00879-JO-DDL
MINUTE ORDER
On November 17, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Settlement and Commencement
of 45-Day Review Period. See Dkt. 18. The Notice indicated the Parties reached a
settlement, whose specific terms were set forth in a proposed Consent Decree, attached to
the Notice as an exhibit. See Dkt. 18-1. Plaintiffs represented they “mailed copies of the
proposed Consent Decree to the Administrator of the U.S. E.P.A., the U.S. Attorney
General, Citizen Suit Coordinator, and the Regional Administrator of the EPA Region IX.”
Dkt. 18 at 2. The Notice stated that under provisions of 40 C.F.R. § 135.5, these agencies
Case 3:25-cv-00879-JO-DDL Document 20 Filed 01/27/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
25-cv-00879-JO-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
would have 45 days from the date of receipt to review a proposed consent decree and to
submit comments to the Court and the Parties, if any. Id.
On January 8, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Completion of 45-Day Review
Period. See Dkt. 19. The Notice indicated that on November 18, 2025, the U.S. Department
of Justice served counsel of record for Plaintiffs a letter confirming receipt of the Consent
Decree and indicating that if the DOJ has no comments or objections, Plaintiffs would not
receive additional contact regarding this matter. See Dkt. 19-1. Plaintiffs confirmed that
they have not received any further communications from the DOJ and therefore requests
the Court enter the Consent Decree. See Dkt. 19 at 2–3.
S.D. Cal. CivLR 7.2(b) requires that “[a]ny stipulation for which court approval is
sought must be first filed as a ‘joint motion.’” 	Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the
Parties to file a joint motion to enter the consent decree. The Court further DIRECTS the
Parties to address, in such motion, how the proposed consent decree is procedurally and
substantively “fair, adequate and reasonable” and “conform[s] to applicable laws.” United
States v. Oregon, 913 F.2d 576, 580 (9th Cir. 1990). The Parties should also address how
the proposed decree furthers the objectives of the “law upon which the complaint was
based.” See Local No. 93, Int’l Ass’n. of Firefighters, etc. v. Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501, 525
(1986). The joint motion, including the aforementioned briefing, should be no more than
ten pages in length and be filed on or before February 19, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 27, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-00879-JO-DDL Document 20 Filed 01/27/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2