 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
REPLY MEMORANDUM
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CITIZENS COURT INTERVENTION MEMORANDUM CHAMBER UNITED STATES PLAINTIFF COMPLAINT CITIZEN SUIT ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE HALLSTROM DUPLICATE CONGRESS WASTE ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS PRE-SUIT NOTICE PURPOSES CIR INTENT RELIEF ALLEGED VIOLATORS CIRCUIT ENFORCEMENT ACTION DISMISS FACTO LAWSUIT SUBSTANTIALLY EXPAND LITIGATION |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))
Plaintiff, ))
v. ) Case No. C-1-00530
) (Judge Herman J. Weber)
AK STEEL CORPORATION, ))
Defendant. )
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF AMICUS CURIAE
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES
IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT AK STEEL CORPORATION
Amicus curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States (U.S. Chamber) previously
submitted a memorandum (dated March 3, 2001) in support of Defendant AK Steel
Corporation's opposition to the State of Ohio's proposed intervention in this matter as a "citizen"
plaintiff. That memorandum addressed two fundamental aspects of Ohio's then-proposed
complaint: (i) Ohio's failure to provide notice of intent to sue, which is a mandatory prerequisite
to all citizen suit claims and necessarily includes the numerous additional claims raised by Ohio
but not the original plaintiff (the United States); and (ii) Ohio's attempt to duplicate the relief
that the United States is seeking for claims that are common to the complaints of both plaintiffs.
Ohio has filed a response (dated March 26, 2001) which ignores the law governing citizen
enforcement of federal environmental laws, and to which the U.S. Chamber submits this reply.1
1 The U.S. Chamber recognizes that the Court's March 29 order granted Ohio's motion to
intervene and conditionally granted Ohio leave to file it's proposed amended complaint,
1. Pre-suit Notice of Intent. The U.S. Chamber's initial memorandum (at 8-12)
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
