This is a timline of this historic case of the "Moms and Pops" (organizations and individual Mothers on behalf of their children) taking on the EPA in Federal Court to ban artificial water fluoridation!




 The links to all the documents.



November 22, 2016

Your Moms Team and coalition filed a Toxic Substances Control Act petition at the EPA in Washington DC. This petition alleges that there is neurotoxic harm from drinking fluoride and the EPA needs to follow their own rules on neurotoxicity and ban the practice of allowing this chemical to be added to the public drinking water. This petition to the EPA included over 180 new studies on fluoride's neurotoxicity including human studies showing reduced IQ.

February 17, 2017

The EPA denies the TSCA petition and allows a de novo proceeding in Federal Court.

April 18, 2017

The Coalition files our complaint against the EPA in a Federal District Court in the 9th Circuit.

October 25, 2017

Plantiffs Opposition to EPA's Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Motion to Dismiss
October 25, 2017 Amicus brief filed by NRDC and SCHF. 
NRDC Amicus Curiae Brief in support of our coalitons challenge to EPA on Section 21 of TSCA.
[Proposed] Amicus Curiae Brief of Natural Resources Defense Council and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families in Support of Neither Party
November 8, 2017

Defendants Reply in Further Support of Motion to Dismiss

December 14, 2017

EPA tries to  roadblock us and limit plantififs' ability to prove our case and limit our discovery.
EPA requests court for “a protective order limiting review to the administrative record and an order striking Plaintiffs’ Jury Demand.”

Federal Defendants’ Notice of Motion and Motion to Limit Review to the Administrative Record and to Strike Plaintiffs’ Jury Demand
December 21, 2017

Judge's ORDER  denying the EPA's motion. 
Court rules in our favor and denies EPA’s Motion to Dismiss!

U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Docket No. 28
January 5, 2018

Amicus Brief by NRDC and SCHF
NRDC opposes EPA’s motion to limit petitioner’s right to discovery. They state, “To the contrary, the language, structure, and history of section 21 all support the district court’s consideration of new evidence.”


Amicus Curiae Brief of Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families in Response to EPA’s Motion to Limit Review (Supporting Neither Party on the Merits)
January 5, 2018

Our oposition to the EPA's tactic to try to limit our "discovery" and prove our case.
Our Team opposition to EPA’s motion to the court for a sweeping order that would exempt this “civil action” from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) and deny Plaintiffs their right to discovery.


Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Federal Defendants’ Motion to Limit Review to the Administrative Record and to Strike Plaintiffs’ Jury Demand
January 15, 2018

EPA wants ot limit our abilty to  prove our allegations of harm.  
EPA’s “further support of their motion for a protective order limiting review to the administrative record.”

Federal Defendant’s Reply in Further Support of Motion to Limit Review to Administrative Record.
January 18, 2018

EPA response to each (107) paragraph to the Plantiffs “Complaint” of April 18, 2017, concluding: “Except as expressly admitted or otherwise stated herein, EPA denies each and every allegation in Plaintiff’s Complaint.”

The Defendant, EPA, “Answer” to  “Complaint of Fluoride’s harm submitted April 18, 2017.
February 7, 2018

Judge Ruled in our favor on the EPA's Motion to limit our "discovery". 
The court ruled: “The EPA moves for a protective order limiting the scope of review in this litigation to the administrative record1, a request that would effectively foreclose Plaintiffs from introducing any evidence in this litigation that was not attached to their administrative petition. The text of the TSCA, its structure, its purpose, and the legislative history make clear that Congress did not intend to impose such a limitation in judicial review of Section 21 citizen petitions. The Court therefore DENIES the EPA’s motion.”

Order Denying Defendant’s (EPA) Motion to Limit Review to the Administrative Record