{"id":2032,"date":"2025-02-17T09:27:12","date_gmt":"2025-02-17T13:27:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=2032"},"modified":"2025-07-18T12:53:33","modified_gmt":"2025-07-18T16:53:33","slug":"california-federal-court-shuts-the-door-on-environmental-class-action-complaint-for-lack-of-standing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2025\/02\/17\/california-federal-court-shuts-the-door-on-environmental-class-action-complaint-for-lack-of-standing\/","title":{"rendered":"California Federal Court Shuts The Door On Environmental Class Action Complaint For Lack Of Standing"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duane Morris Synopsis:<\/em><\/strong>  In Genesis B., et al. v U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Case No. 2:23-CV-10345 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2025), Judge Michael Fitzgerald of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed<\/a>, without leave to amend, a putative class action for lack of standing due to a lack of traceability between plaintiffs\u2019 alleged injury and challenged policies promulgated by defendants, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (\u201cEPA\u201d) and the Office of Management and Budget (\u201cOMB\u201d). The ruling is an important reminder on the importance of standing in class action litigation.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiffs, a group of children living in California, filed a putative class action seeking declaratory relief premised on alleged violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the Take Care Clause of Article II of the U.S. Constitution.  (Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Complaint (ECF No. 50.) at 1-2.)  Plaintiffs allege they were \u201charmed by climate change due to increased pollution and emissions, rising temperatures, extreme weather patterns, and wildfire exposure.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at 2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiffs challenge Circular Order No. A-4, a \u201cguidance document\u201d issued by the OMB that \u201csets forth the Executive Branch policy on benefit-cost analysis\u201d (\u201cBCA\u201d).  Id.<\/em> at 2.  In accordance with Circular Order No. A-4, the EPA issued, \u201cGuidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses\u201d (the \u201cEPA Guidelines\u201d), that set forth the EPA\u2019s \u201cpolicy on performing BCA and other economic analyses of contemplated regulations in accordance with Circular Order No. A-4.\u201d  Id.<\/em>  Plaintiffs allege that, based on the EPA Guidelines, the EPA issued Regulatory Impact Analyses that \u201canticipate[ ] and evaluate[ ] the likely consequences of its regulatory actions allowing climate pollutions.\u201d  Id.<\/em>  These various policies, according to Plaintiffs, \u201crequire\u201d the EPA to apply \u201cdiscount rates\u201d that \u201cput their thumb on the scale against urgent and ambitious regulatory programs to reduce climate pollution, and in favor of taking less ambitious actions in the present.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at 3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Defendants, the EPA, Michael Regan, \u201cin his official capacity as Administrator of the EPA,\u201d the OMB, and Shalanda Young, \u201cin her official capacity as Director of OMB\u201d (together, \u201cDefendants\u201d), moved to dismiss the operative complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, respectively.  Id.<\/em> at 6.  The Court granted Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss, without leave to amend, dismissing the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction finding that Plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their complaint as the purported injuries were not \u201cfairly traceable\u201d to Defendants\u2019 policies.  Id.<\/em> at 7.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court\u2019s Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court analyzed two theories of harm advanced by Plaintiffs, including: (1) \u201cenvironmental harms\u201d that Defendants\u2019 policies allegedly \u201cresult in the under-regulations of greenhouse gas emissions, which burdens Plaintiffs by disrupting, inter alia, their education, recreation, and religious expression;\u201d and (2) \u201charms from discrimination\u201d because Defendants\u2019 policies allegedly \u201c[deny them] equal treatment under law.\u201d  Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, the Court held that Plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to demonstrate the alleged \u201cenvironmental harms\u201d were \u201cfairly traceable\u201d to any of the alleged \u201cdiscriminatory\u201d policies.  Id. <\/em>at 8. Critically, the Court reasoned that \u201cPlaintiffs fail to allege that Circular No. A-4 or the EPA Guidelines set out binding<\/em><\/strong> discount rates or practices.\u201d  Id. <\/em>(emphasis added).  The Court noted that the OMB\u2019s policies should be interpreted as \u201cguidance documents\u201d and that BCAs are \u201ccontext-specific in nature, and [do] not mandate a particular [discount] rate.\u201d  Id.<\/em>  Thus, the EPA \u201cmay or may not\u201d use discounting, and even it does apply discounting, it \u201cis only a single guiding factor when used\u201d in any promulgated policies.  Id.<\/em>  Since Plaintiffs \u201ctheory of harm therefore bundles uncertainty on uncertainty,\u201d the Court concluded that Plaintiffs failed to \u201cdemonstrate traceability as to their environmental harms.\u201d  Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court rejected Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish decisions from the Eighth and Fifth Circuits, finding that those courts\u2019 reliance on a \u201cdraft update to Circular No. A-4\u201d was immaterial to the decisions.  Id.<\/em> at 9.  The Court also rejected Plaintiffs\u2019 argument that it was premature to consider whether Defendants\u2019 policies were \u201cbinding\u201d at the responsive pleading stage of the litigation.  Id.<\/em> at 9-10.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, the Court held that Plaintiffs failed to establish they \u201csuffered an injury-in-fact\u201d that is traceable to the alleged discrimination caused by Defendants\u2019 policies.  Id.<\/em> at 12.  The Court noted that, \u201cto find that there is traceability as to the alleged facial discrimination, the Court must find that unequal treatment under the law occurred.\u201d  Id.<\/em>  Here, the complaint failed to identify any \u201cindividual\u201d harms suffered by Plaintiffs, and instead \u201canticipate[s] societal harms and benefits\u201d that \u201cwill be experienced relatively equally by all people \u2014 both in the United States and around the world \u2014 who are alive at the time of their impacts.\u201d  Id.<\/em>  As such, the alleged harm \u201cdoes not derive from any of the children in the [Defendants\u2019 policies], but on the allegation that the [Defendants\u2019 policies] result in a suboptimal rate of greenhouse gas emissions in the future, which will disproportionately impact present-day children.\u201d  Id.<\/em>  As an example, the Court noted the complaint fails to answer how the policies \u201cwork a discriminatory harm against an individual aged 17 years and 364 days and not an individual aged 18 years.\u201d  Id.<\/em>  Thus, the Court determined that Plaintiffs claims failed because they are \u201cnot about a stigmatic injury at all, but rather a displeasure with the EPA\u2019s economic analyses in assessing the impacts of future harms.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at 14.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, the Court granted Defendants\u2019 motion without leave to amend because, \u201cno matter how many opportunities for amendment Plaintiffs receive, they cannot overcome the structural lack of injury-in-fact and traceability as to their claims.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at 16.  Since Defendants\u2019 policies \u201cdo not prescribe a discount rate that the EPA must use and because Plaintiffs challenge no specific policies,\u201d the Court found it \u201cdifficult to imagine how Plaintiffs could ever sufficiently allege standing on\u201d the facts set forth in the complaint.  Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications For Companies<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Standing can be an effective tool to challenge putative class action complaints at the responsive pleading stage of the litigation.  Although a court may be hesitant to dismiss a complaint without leave to amend, the G.B<\/em>. decision underscores how effective challenging standing can be to secure a dismissal in the employer\u2019s favor at the outset of the litigation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. Duane Morris Synopsis:  In Genesis B., et al. v U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Case No. 2:23-CV-10345 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2025), Judge Michael Fitzgerald of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed, without leave to amend, a putative class action for lack of standing … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “California Federal Court Shuts The Door On Environmental Class Action Complaint For Lack Of Standing”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[111],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7],"class_list":["post-2032","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-discrimination"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2032","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2032"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2032\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2032"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2032"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2032"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=2032"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}