San Diego Coastkeeper, a non-profit corporation; Coastal Environmental Rights...

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO COASTKEEPER, a non- Case No.: 25-cv-00879-JO-DDL profit corporation; COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS MINUTE ORDER FOUNDATION, a non-profit corporation, 14 Plaintiffs, v. WEST COAST IRON, a California Corporation, 19 Defendant.

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 || 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. Jd.

3 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.

10 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 16 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.

9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

A Dated: January 27, 2026 - Honorable Jinsook Ohta 26 United States District Judge