Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment v. Harley-Davidson of Salt Lake City et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
UTAH PHYSICIANS FOR A HEALTHY
ENVIRONMENT, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
HARLEY-DAVIDSON OF SALT LAKE
CITY, LCC (d/b/a Harley-Davidson of Salt
Lake City and South Valley Harley-Davidson
Shop); NORTHERN UTAH POWER
SPORTS, LLC (d/b/a Golden Spike Harley-
Davidson and Saddleback Harley-Davidson);
and JOSEPH L. TIMMONS, JR.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING [168] JOINT
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT
DECREE
Case No. 2:22-cv-00473-DBB-DAO
District Judge David Barlow
Before the court is Plaintiff Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment’s (“UPHE”) and
Defendants Harley-Davidson of Salt Lake City et al.’s Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent
Decree (the “Motion”).1
BACKGROUND
This case is a federal Clean Air Act citizen enforcement action brought against
Defendants by UPHE.2 In its Complaint, UPHE alleged that the Defendants committed various
federal emissions violations with respect to motor vehicles that they owned, operated, and sold.3
After years of litigation, the parties notified the court on September 10, 2025, that they had
1 Joint Motion for Entry Consent Decree “Motion,” ECF No. 168, filed Nov. 10, 2025.
2 Complaint, ECF No. 2, filed July 18, 2022.
3 See generally id.
Case 2:22-cv-00473-DBB-DAO Document 170 Filed 12/10/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 5

2
reached an agreement in the form of a proposed Consent Decree.4 In accordance with 42 U.S.C.
§ 7604 in the Clean Air Act,5 the parties then submitted a copy of the proposed decree to the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Justice (DOJ) on
September 22, 2025.6 This began a statutory forty-five day review period during which the
Government could submit comments on the proposed decree or intervene as a matter of right.7
The comment and review period has now ended with no Government comments or intervention,
so the court may review and enter the proposed decree if it merits approval.8
STANDARD
“A consent decree is primarily a means by which parties settle their disputes without
having to bear the financial and other costs of litigating.”9 “While the court may either approve
or deny the issuance of a consent decree, generally it is not entitled to change the terms of the
agreement stipulated to by the parties.”10 Furthermore, “because the issuance of a consent decree
places the power of the court behind the compromise struck by the parties, the district court must
ensure that the agreement is not illegal, a product of collusion, or against the public interest.”11
“The court also has the duty to decide whether the decree is fair, adequate, and reasonable before
it is approved.”12
4 Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree, ECF No. 166, filed Sep. 10, 2025.
5 42 U.S.C. § 7604(c)(3).
6 Notice of Government Consent Decree Review and Comment Deadline, ECF No. 167, filed Oct. 15, 2025.
7 42 U.S.C. § 7604(c)(3).
8 Id.
9 Loc. No. 93, Int'l Ass’n of Firefighters, AFL-CIO C.L.C. v. City of Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501, 528 (1986).
10 United States v. State of Colo., 937 F.2d 505, 509 (10th Cir. 1991).
11 Id.
12 Id.
Case 2:22-cv-00473-DBB-DAO Document 170 Filed 12/10/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 5

3
DISCUSSION
The parties’ proposed Consent Decree would be binding on UPHE, Defendants, and any
of their respective successors, assigns, or agents.13 It would, among other things, enjoin
Defendants from installing or selling motor vehicle parts that do not comply with emissions
regulations,14 require Defendants to pay a $450,000 penalty to the Federal Treasury,15 establish
certain reporting requirements between Defendants and UPHE for two-and-a-half years,16 and set
stipulated penalties for any future violations.17 After reviewing the proposed Decree, the court
finds that its terms are not illegal or contrary to the public interest. Its requirements align with the
Clean Air Act’s purpose of protecting air quality and preventing air pollution.18 There is no
indication that its terms would violate federal or state law or be counterproductive to federal or
state emissions priorities.
Having determined that the agreement is neither illegal nor against the public interest, the
court must next ensure that the agreement is “fair, adequate, and reasonable” prior to final
approval.19 “Fairness contains both procedural and substantive components.”20 Procedural
fairness stems from an open, balanced bargaining process, and substantive fairness is present
when the agreement is equitable and reinforces principles of accountability.21 In this case, the
proposed Consent Decree satisfies both components of fairness. Procedurally, it was negotiated
13 Consent Decree ¶ 9, ECF No. 168-1, filed Nov. 10, 2025.
14 Id. ¶¶ 14–18.
15 Id. ¶¶ 19–20.
16 Id. ¶¶ 21–23.
17 Id. ¶¶ 24–27.
18 See 42 USCA § 7401.
19 United States v. State of Colo., 937 F.2d 505, 509 (10th Cir. 1991).
20 WildEarth Guardians v. Jackson, No. 11-CV-00001-CMA-MEH, 2011 WL 4485964, at *4 (D. Colo. Sept. 27,
2011) (citing United States v. Cannons Eng’g Corp., 899 F.2d 79, 86 (1st Cir. 1990)).
21 Id.
Case 2:22-cv-00473-DBB-DAO Document 170 Filed 12/10/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 5

4
between adversarial parties by experienced legal counsel.22 The record also shows that the
parties’ settlement discussions lasted for multiple weeks and occurred years into this litigation.23
This indicates that the agreement was thoroughly negotiated, and that each party had sufficient
information to make reasoned decisions.
Substantively, the court finds that the penalty and reporting requirements fairly establish
accountability without being overly punitive.24 The injunction section is also substantively fair
and equitable because it generally requires compliance with existing regulations and does not
impose excessive additional requirements.25 For these reasons, the Consent Decree is both
procedurally and substantively fair, as well as free of evidence of collusion.
The adequacy and reasonableness of a proposed Consent Decree in a Clean Air Act case
may be determined by considering whether the agreement “upholds the objectives of the CAA”
and “is technically adequate to accomplish the goal of cleaning the environment.”26 As already
discussed, the parties’ proposal aligns with the Clean Air Act’s purposes of reducing air
pollution and maintaining air quality. It also seems adequate to accomplish that objective. The
Consent Decree provides for a permanent injunction against activities that would violate the
Clean Air Act and short-term reporting requirements to ensure that the agreement is
implemented.27 It also imposes a large one-time penalty and potential additional fines to further
incentivize compliance with federal law.28
22 See Second Joint Motion to Extend Deadline to File Joint Civil Trial Notice 2, ECF No. 163, filed Sep. 2, 2025
(reporting to the court that the parties had “scheduled an in-person settlement meeting of lawyers and clients”).
23 See First Joint Motion to Extend Deadline to File Joint Civil Trial Notice 2, ECF No. 160, filed Aug. 20, 2025.
24 See Consent Decree ¶¶ 19–23.
25 Id. ¶¶ 14–18.
26 WildEarth Guardians, 2011 WL 4485964, at *4.
27 See Consent Decree ¶¶ 14–18, 21–23.
28 Id. ¶¶ 24–27.
Case 2:22-cv-00473-DBB-DAO Document 170 Filed 12/10/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 5

5
All parties have approved the proposed Consent Decree, and the Government has not
offered any comments or criticisms. Because the court has also independently determined that
the proposed Consent Decree is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and that it is not illegal or
contrary to public policy, the Decree is approved.
ORDER
The parties’ [168] Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent Decree is GRANTED. The court
will enter the proposed Consent Decree as a final judgment.
Signed December 10, 2025.
BY THE COURT
________________________________________
David Barlow
United States District Judge
Case 2:22-cv-00473-DBB-DAO Document 170 Filed 12/10/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 5